Social 7 Intergroup Behaviour

  • Created by: freya_bc
  • Created on: 24-04-18 18:15
Sherif, 1966
Realistic conflict theory- competition between groups over scarce resources results in conflict and ethnocentrism - resources physc, econ, conceptual
1 of 30
King, Knight & Hebl, 2010).
Discrimination increases in economic hardship and among the groups that have the most to lose
2 of 30
Sheriff (1966)
summer camp exp eagles and rattlers,- spontaneous friendship formation, ingroup and norm formation, intergroup competition, intergroup cooperation superordinate goals
3 of 30
Brown, 2000
actual vs perceived material conflicts
4 of 30
Approach is too generic – ignores social historical context (Billig,1995).
5 of 30
Davis (1969)
relative deprivation J curve Form expectations about the future based on behaviour in the past- J curve drops off and this is where rel dep kicks in- difference between what expected and what actually happened
6 of 30
Runciman (1966
distinguished between egoistic rel dep (an idvs own sense of dep rel to other sim idv), fraternalistic- collective sense group entitled to more than other groups
7 of 30
Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996)
strong group ID nec for rel dep- to influence perceptions and collective action
8 of 30
Martin et al., (1984)
perceived effectiveness of action- taking action protesting will readdress imbalance. affects rel dep
9 of 30
Tyler & Lind, 1992
perception of injustice affect rel dep. Group has less than it is entitled to (distributive injustice) Unfair procedures (procedural injustice
10 of 30
Martin & Murray, 1983).
ingroup-outgroup comparisons- likelihood for action dep on which out-group we compare our group against
11 of 30
Tajfel (1981)
minimal group experiments, fairness- equal distrib of points between groups, max joint profit= no favourite, max dif= difference in favour of in group
12 of 30
Vaughan, Tajfel, & Williams, 1981).
participants allocate resources unfairly (in favour of the in-group). It is even observed in children as young as 7 and 12 years when they were given coins to distribute
13 of 30
Mummendey & Otten, 1998
Positive-negative symmetry – effect less pronounced when participants distribute punishment to out-group
14 of 30
Tajfel & Turner, 1979
Social Identity Theory - people show in-group favoritism, because they derive self-esteem not only from personal accomplishments, but also from the status and achievements of their in-group
15 of 30
Fein and Spencer, (1997)
derogating outgroup members- if given positive feedback from intel test, threatened if told werent performing well in rel to rest of peer group - asked to watch video of applicant and give feedback. More positive if got positive feedback-...
16 of 30
not observed in candidate that was not jewish - not in outgroup.
17 of 30
Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski (2004)
terror management theory Innate drive for survival + an awareness of the inevitability of death = incapacitating terror. Wouldn’t be able to function To assuage the paralyzing fear of death, humans embrace “cultural worldviews
18 of 30
MCGregor et al., (1998)
pp eval likeminded or dissim political people After a MS manipulation, participants have demonstrated greater aggression (as measured via the allocation of hot sauce) to a person who threatened their political worldview.
19 of 30
Turner et al., 1987).
self-categorisation theory explains the cog cateogrisation process underpinning SIT
20 of 30
Brigham & Barkowitz, 1978
Relative homogeneity effect: tendency to see ingroup members as more differentiated, and out-group members the same
21 of 30
Black and White college students were shown 72 photographs of black and white faces and were asked whether they had seen it previously in a set of 24 photographs (12 for each group). Both groups indicated that signifmore dif recog OG faces
22 of 30
Allport (1954):
contact hypothesis- view that bringing members of opposing social groups together will improve intergroup relations and reduce prejudice and discrimination
23 of 30
Zanjonc, 1968
mere exposure effect
24 of 30
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006):
meta, Intergroup contact was effective – 94% of samples showed an inverse relationship between contact and prejudice. The effects of contact generalized beyond the contact situation
25 of 30
Allport’s conditions were effective, but not essential for a reduction prejudice. BUT – his conditions were only fully observed in 19% of samples!
26 of 30
Stephan et al., 2002
Research suggests uncertainty reduction is a mechanism – contact reduces the anxiety of not knowing how to act, how you will be perceived by the others and whether you will be accepted
27 of 30
Wilder, (1984)
interpersonal contact- more if pleasant/typical than unpleasant atypical behaviour of the out-group member was manipulated – he/she either behaved in a pleasant or unpleasant manner. Participants evaluated the other college as a whole afterwards...
28 of 30
Relative to a no contact control condition, only a pleasant interaction with a typical group member generalised to the whole college. When bring people together reduces uncertainty of how to behave around them- fear and anx reduces
29 of 30
Noor et al., 2012
intergroup competitive victimhood- group members involved in violent conflicts believe their group has suffered more than the other.
30 of 30

Other cards in this set

Card 2


King, Knight & Hebl, 2010).


Discrimination increases in economic hardship and among the groups that have the most to lose

Card 3


Sheriff (1966)


Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4


Brown, 2000


Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5




Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Intergroup Behaviour resources »