Textbook Notes (380,736)
CA (168,194)
UTSG (11,033)
PSY (2,994)
PSY220H1 (200)
Chapter 10

Social Psychology (Cdn Ed) Sanderson & Safdar Chapter 10

8 Pages
190 Views

Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSY220H1
Professor
Ashley Waggoner Denton

This preview shows pages 1-3. Sign up to view the full 8 pages of the document.
Chapter 10: Intergroup Relations
Examine theories and explanations of collective actions or crows behavior (what happens when ppl congregate
en masse)
Intergroup Relations: the way in which people in groups perceive, think about, feel about and act toward
people in other groups
-example of intergroup behavior can be one skinhead against on gypsy; this represents behavior at the
individual level but also intergroup behavior bc the individual is acting as a member of a fascist group against a
member of the Roma people
How Do Different Theories Explain Intergroup Relations?
Early Research and Theories of Crowd Behavior
-Le Bon (1896) said that when ppl become part of a crowd they descend rungs on the ladder of civilization; ppl
act instinctively and become irrational; believed that threecharacteristics were associated with processes
specific to crowds:
1. Anonymity: people in a crowd become anonymous and are therefore less responsible for their
actions
2. Suggestibility: When ppl’s social constraints are loosened, they become more suggestible (when few
individuals start to act on aggressive impulses, other copy)
3. Contagion: Irrationality and violent acts are contagious
-McDougall (1920) characterized crowds as violent, impulsive, suggestible and emotional
Both had negative perception of crowds
-alternative view by Floyd Allport (1924): rejected idea of a group mind; said that the individual in the crowd
behaves just as he would behave alone only more so; but also that crowds were destructive and harmful
Law Connections: Italian Police Officers’ Perception of Crowd Conflict
-research shows that crowd conflict can be understood by using the elaborate social identity model which is
based on social identity theory and self categorization theory
This model suggests that crowds recognize that everyone in the crowd shares a common social identity
based on their intergroup relations with the outgroup
Crowd conflict can occur when:
o(1) Physical force is used and the police perceive it as legitimate but the crowd doesn’t
o(2) When the crowd feels that it has the power to use its collective force to resist police action
-when police officers perceived the crowd as homogenous threat, more likely to treat crowd members as a
single body (like herd animals)
-guidelines for crowd policing:
(1) education about the social identities of different groups in the crowd
(2) facilitation of crowd aims
(2) differentiation of crowd members
(4) proper communication with crowd members
Deindividuation
-Zimbardo’s theory of deindividuation: said that when ppl are in large groups, they’re less likely to follow
normal rules of behavior (because ppl become anonymous and there is a sense of diffusion of individual
responsibility)
-Deindividuation: the tendency to not follow normal rules of behavior as a result of losing one’s self
awareness
-contributing factors for deindividuation: anonymity, accountability, decrease in self awareness
Anonymity
-group settings provide anonymity because each individual is less distinguishable
-enhanced in situations where ppl wear uniforms or they paint or cover their face (makes person less
identifiable)
-e.g. Stanford Prison Experiment by Zimbardo: study participants as either prisoners or guards (deindividuation
for participants increased by wearing uniforms, referring to prisoners by prisoner number etc.)
-Zimbardo also found that female uni students who wore white coats like KKK uniform gave longer electric
shocks to another participant than those who wore their own clothes and had name tag
-but, becoming anonymous by wearing uniform does not always lead to increasing aggressive behavior (cues
in social environment important)
In study, female undergrads assigned to one of four conditions: individuation (identifiable),
deindividuation (non identifiable), prosocial cue, antisocial cue
Findings: (1) Participants in a KKK uniform administered more shocks than participants in a nurse
uniform, whether or not they wore name tags (2) Participants in the nurse costumes delivered lower
shocks when they did not wear name tags vs. when they did
oDeindividuation facilitated prosocial behavior for those wearing nurse uniform (but no effects on
antisocial behavior on those wearing KKK)
oWhen anonymous, one becomes more responsive to the cues in the situation rather than simply
behaving more aggressively
Accountability
-accountability: whether a person expects to be held responsible for his or her actions
-study found that abandoned car in Bronx (where anonymity rules) quickly vandalized, but abandoned car in
California (sense of community dominates), remains untouched
-as size of group increases, so does its level of violence
Decrease In Self-Awareness
-ppl in group have less of a sense of themselves as distinct individuals; decrease in self awareness leads ppl
to be less focused on matching behavior to their normal standards
-e.g. participants flipped coin to decide whether they would do appealing task or their partner would; but most
students who performed fair coin toss declared themselves as winning; but when participants did the coin toss
in front of mirror, the results of coin toss then became fair (shows our willingness to engage in less moral
behavior when self awareness is low)
Social Identity Theory
-crowd behavior has intergroup dimension (an aspect not discussed previously)
-in many crowd situations there are at least two groups (the other group doesn’t have to be physically present,
like Sri Lankans demonstrating against Sinhalese government by blocking Expressway in Toronto)
-people in a crowd do not lose their identity is some way but assume new social identity as member of a
particular group
-Social Identity Theory: posits that each person strives to enhance his or her self esteem, which is composed
of two parts: personal identity and social identity
Says that self esteem is influenced by individual’s personal identity, which comes from personal
achievements, and social identity, which comes from group achievements, favoritism toward ingroup
and derogation toward outgroup
Our group memberships influence our thoughts feelings and behavior so we’re motivated to affiliate
with successful groups to increase our own feelings or self worth
Also posits that threats to one’s self esteem increase the need for in group favoritism (people whose
group is threatened and those who feel bad about themselves develop more in group identification and
are more likely to derogate outgroup members)
oIngroup favoritism and outgroup derogatino are likely to occur when (1) status of group is being
threatened (2) status of individual within group is threatened and (2) if the group is small
Status of Ingroup
-groups that are threatened with inferiority take particular pleasure at anther group’s failure even if that failure
will not directly benefit them in any way
E.g. Dutch soccer fans who first thought about how poorly their team typically did in World Cup
experienced greater pleasure with German loss to another team than did fans who hadn’t first thought
about it
Status Within the Group
-people who have marginal status in their in group are more likely to derogate out group members, particularly
in the presence of ingroup members
-e.g. Italian men interacted w/ virtual partner; either traditional (wanted to be teacher, have a family) or feminist
(wanted to be bank manager, not afraid of competeing with men); then they sent photographic images
including pornographic or neutral; men sent more offensive pornographic images to feminist woman than to
traditional women (feminist represented threat to male dominance and social status)
Group Size
-the smaller the group, greater the tendency for people to be loyal to it (why minority groups tend to have
greater group loyalty than majority groups)
Research Focus on Gender: Dynamics of Group Behavior Based on the Ratio of Males and Females in a
Group
-Kanter’s work with gender ratio of group dynamics showed three perceptual phenomena that influenced group
dynamics: visibility, polarization and assimilation
For women in skewed groups (predominantly one gender with few token members of other gender),
visibility was high for the women (had to face greater attention), men had perception of ingroup
commonalities and for assimilation, perceiving the token woman’s characteristics to be more like a
category characterization than they actually are
Further research showed greater polarization and assimilation of women than men, but not greater
visibility for male-skewed than male-tilted settings
How Does Intergroup Conflict Develop?
Realistic Conflict Theory
-Realistic Conflict Theory: says the animosity between different groups (like Blacks whites, men, women) is a
result of individuals’ self-interest motived in terms of competition for jobs, land and power
E.g. White Americans have more positive attitude towards Asian Americans when they work tieh Asian
American on chemistry project than when working with African American, and competing against Asian
American
oWhites are concerned about being outperformed by Asian students; present realistic threat toe
their own achievements
Shows that shifting group memberships (one of them into one of us) can help overcome negative
intergroup relations
-e.g. study by Muzafer Sherif about summer camp boys; able to show the stages of realistic conflict theory in
his experiment by:
(1) Formation of Group that was based on interpersonal friendship and led to development of group
culture
(2) Intergroup Conflict hat was created due to intergroup competition and led to aggression
(3) intergroup Cooperation that was developed due to presence of superordinate goals and transformed
intergroup hostility to cooperation
-mirror-image perception: reciprocal view when each group sees its own behavior as caused by the actions
of the other side
Simultaneous view of our own side’s actions as just and fair and those of the other side as evil and
selfish even when the outward behavior may be identical (e.g. Both Palestinians and Israelis show
mirror-image perception in how they view the acts which the other side initiated and those which they
initiated)
Relative Deprivation Theory
Relative Deprivation: the feelings or discontent caused by the belief that one fares poorly compared to people
in other groups (emphasizes a group’s perception of its circumstances – realistic conflict theory talks about
actual resources that one group has and the other does not)

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
Chapter 10: Intergroup Relations Examine theories and explanations of collective actions or crows behavior (what happens when ppl congregate en masse) Intergroup Relations: the way in which people in groups perceive, think about, feel about and act toward people in other groups -example of intergroup behavior can be one skinhead against on gypsy; this represents behavior at the individual level but also intergroup behavior bc the individual is acting as a member of a fascist group against a member of the Roma people How Do Different Theories Explain Intergroup Relations? Early Research and Theories of Crowd Behavior -Le Bon (1896) said that when ppl become part of a crowd they descend rungs on the ladder of civilization; ppl act instinctively and become irrational; believed that threecharacteristics were associated with processes specific to crowds: 1. Anonymity: people in a crowd become anonymous and are therefore less responsible for their actions 2. Suggestibility: When ppl’s social constraints are loosened, they become more suggestible (when few individuals start to act on aggressive impulses, other copy) 3. Contagion: Irrationality and violent acts are contagious -McDougall (1920) characterized crowds as violent, impulsive, suggestible and emotional • Both had negative perception of crowds -alternative view by Floyd Allport (1924): rejected idea of a group mind; said that the individual in the crowd behaves just as he would behave alone only more so; but also that crowds were destructive and harmful Law Connections: Italian Police Officers’ Perception of Crowd Conflict -research shows that crowd conflict can be understood by using the elaborate social identity model which is based on social identity theory and self categorization theory • This model suggests that crowds recognize that everyone in the crowd shares a common social identity based on their intergroup relations with the outgroup • Crowd conflict can occur when: o (1) Physical force is used and the police perceive it as legitimate but the crowd doesn’t o (2) When the crowd feels that it has the power to use its collective force to resist police action -when police officers perceived the crowd as homogenous threat, more likely to treat crowd members as a single body (like herd animals) -guidelines for crowd policing: (1) education about the social identities of different groups in the crowd (2) facilitation of crowd aims (2) differentiation of crowd members (4) proper communication with crowd members Deindividuation -Zimbardo’s theory of deindividuation: said that when ppl are in large groups, they’re less likely to follow normal rules of behavior (because ppl become anonymous and there is a sense of diffusion of individual responsibility) -Deindividuation: the tendency to not follow normal rules of behavior as a result of losing one’s self awareness -contributing factors for deindividuation: anonymity, accountability, decrease in self awareness Anonymity -group settings provide anonymity because each individual is less distinguishable -enhanced in situations where ppl wear uniforms or they paint or cover their face (makes person less identifiable) -e.g. Stanford Prison Experiment by Zimbardo: study participants as either prisoners or guards (deindividuation for participants increased by wearing uniforms, referring to prisoners by prisoner number etc.) -Zimbardo also found that female uni students who wore white coats like KKK uniform gave longer electric shocks to another participant than those who wore their own clothes and had name tag -but, becoming anonymous by wearing uniform does not always lead to increasing aggressive behavior (cues in social environment important) • In study, female undergrads assigned to one of four conditions: individuation (identifiable), deindividuation (non identifiable), prosocial cue, antisocial cue • Findings: (1) Participants in a KKK uniform administered more shocks than participants in a nurse uniform, whether or not they wore name tags (2) Participants in the nurse costumes delivered lower shocks when they did not wear name tags vs. when they did o Deindividuation facilitated prosocial behavior for those wearing nurse uniform (but no effects on antisocial behavior on those wearing KKK) o When anonymous, one becomes more responsive to the cues in the situation rather than simply behaving more aggressively Accountability -accountability: whether a person expects to be held responsible for his or her actions -study found that abandoned car in Bronx (where anonymity rules) quickly vandalized, but abandoned car in California (sense of community dominates), remains untouched -as size of group increases, so does its level of violence Decrease In Self-Awareness -ppl in group have less of a sense of themselves as distinct individuals; decrease in self awareness leads ppl to be less focused on matching behavior to their normal standards -e.g. participants flipped coin to decide whether they would do appealing task or their partner would; but most students who performed fair coin toss declared themselves as winning; but when participants did the coin toss in front of mirror, the results of coin toss then became fair (shows our willingness to engage in less moral behavior when self awareness is low) Social Identity Theory -crowd behavior has intergroup dimension (an aspect not discussed previously) -in many crowd situations there are at least two groups (the other group doesn’t have to be physically present, like Sri Lankans demonstrating against Sinhalese government by blocking Expressway in Toronto) -people in a crowd do not lose their identity is some way but assume new social identity as member of a particular group -Social Identity Theory: posits that each person strives to enhance his or her self esteem, which is composed of two parts: personal identity and social identity • Says that self esteem is influenced by individual’s personal identity, which comes from personal achievements, and social identity, which comes from group achievements, favoritism toward ingroup and derogation toward outgroup • Our group memberships influence our thoughts feelings and behavior so we’re motivated to affiliate with successful groups to increase our own feelings or self worth • Also posits that threats to one’s self esteem increase the need for in group favoritism (people whose group is threatened and those who feel bad about themselves develop more in group identification and are more likely to derogate outgroup members) o Ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogatino are likely to occur when (1) status of group is being threatened (2) status of individual within group is threatened and (2) if the group is small Status of Ingroup -groups that are threatened with inferiority take particular pleasure at anther group’s failure even if that failure will not directly benefit them in any way • E.g. Dutch soccer fans who first thought about how poorly their team typically did in World Cup experienced greater pleasure with German loss to another team than did fans who hadn’t first thought about it Status Within the Group -people who have marginal status in their in group are more likely to derogate out group members, particularly in the presence of ingroup members -e.g. Italian men interacted w/ virtual partner; either traditional (wanted to be teacher, have a family) or feminist (wanted to be bank manager, not afraid of competeing with men); then they sent photographic images including pornographic or neutral; men sent more offensive pornographic images to feminist woman than to traditional women (feminist represented threat to male dominance and social status) Group Size -the smaller the group, greater the tendency for people to be loyal to it (why minority groups tend to have greater group loyalty than majority groups) Research Focus on Gender: Dynamics of Group Behavior Based on the Ratio of Males and Females in a Group -Kanter’s work with gender ratio of group dynamics showed three perceptual phenomena that influenced group dynamics: visibility, polarization and assimilation • For women in skewed groups (predominantly one gender with few token members of other gender), visibility was high for the women (had to face greater attention), men had perception of ingroup commonalities and for assimilation, perceiving the token woman’s characteristics to be more like a category characterization than they actually are • Further research showed greater polarization and assimilation of women than men, but not greater visibility for male-skewed than male-tilted settings How Does Intergroup Conflict Develop? Realistic Conflict Theory -Realistic Conflict Theory: says the animosity between different groups (like Blacks whites, men, women) is a result of individuals’ self-interest motived in terms of competition for jobs, land and power • E.g. White Americans have more positive attitude towards Asian Americans when they work tieh Asian American on chemistry project than when working with African American, and competing against Asian American o Whites are concerned about being outperformed by Asian students; present realistic threat toe their own achievements • Shows that shifting group memberships (one of them into one of us) can help overcome negative intergroup relations -e.g. study by Muzafer Sherif about summer camp boys; able to show the stages of realistic conflict theory in his experiment by: (1) Formation of Group that was based on interpersonal friendship and led to development of group culture (2) Intergroup Conflict hat was created due to intergroup competition and led to aggression (3) intergroup Cooperation that was developed due to presence of superordinate goals and transformed intergroup hostility to cooperation -mirror-image perception: reciprocal view when each group sees its own behavior as caused by the actions of the other side • Simultaneous view of our own side’s actions as just and fair and those of the other side as evil and selfish even when the outward behavior may be identical (e.g. Both Palestinians and Israelis show mirror-image perception in how they view the acts which the other side initiated and those which they initiated) Relative Deprivation Theory Relative Deprivation: the feelings or discontent caused by the belief that one fares poorly compared to people in other groups (emphasizes a group’s perception of its circumstances – realistic conflict theory talks about actual resources that one group has and the other does not) • Absolute/realistic Deprivation: the belief that one’s own resources are directly threatened by ppl in other groups; when one’s basic welfare needs (food, housing, education, health care are unmet) -ppl are discontented not necessarily because they are hungry or poor. But because they are hungrier or poorer than they believe they should be -e.g. air force personnel expressed more complaints about promotion than did the military police; suprising bc most personnel in the air force received promotion and few in the military police did • Because most personnel in the air force received promotion, those who didn’t receive promotoion felt relatively deprived by comparison with others -Crosby’s model of relative deprivation: • Five conditions necessary for relative deprivation: o (1) Seeing someone possess x (2) wanting x (3) feeling entitled to x (4) feasibility to attain x (5) not feeling personally responsible for the lack of x • says that in ord
More Less
Unlock Document


Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

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