C82SAD Intergroup Behaviour

1
C82SAD Intergroup Behaviour
2
What is Intergroup Behaviour?

• Intergroup behaviour is any perception,
  cognition, or behaviour that is influenced by
  peoples recognition that they and others are
  members of distinct social groups (Hogg
  Vaughan, 2005, p. 392)
• Examples of intergroup behaviour
• International and intra-national conflicts
• Political confrontations
• Interethnic relations
• Negotiations between unions and management
• Competitive team sports

3
What is Intergroup Behaviour?

• Intergroup behaviour is regulated by individuals
  awareness of and identification with different
  social groups
• Therefore presence of the group can be real, but
  it can also be implied remember Allport (1935)
• As in definition of social psychology this a
  common assumption that social behaviour is
  influenced by the social categories to which we
  belong known as a metatheory
• Intergroup behaviour brings together literature
  on
• Social influence and social facilitation
• Group processes
• Prejudice and discrimination

4
Relative Deprivation and Social Unrest

• Berkowitz (1962) suggests that intergroup
  prejudice and discriminatory behaviour is a
  function of
• Aversive events (e.g., extreme climactic
  conditions)
• Aggressive associations (e.g., situational cues,
  past associations)
• Berkowitz used this in his long hot summer
  explanation for collective violence using LA
  Watts (1965) and Detroit (1967) race riots which
  occurred during excessive heatwave conditions
• Perceptions of relative deprivation was an
  important factor

5
Collective Violence
Relative deprivation
Frustration
Aversive environmental conditions (e.g.,
heatwave) amplifies frustration
Individual acts of aggression
Individual acts of aggression exacerbated
by aggressive stimuli (e.g., armed police)
Aggression becomes more widespread and Assumes
role of dominant response
Aggression spreads rapidly through
social facilitation process
Source Berkowitz (1972)
Collective violence
6
Collective Violence

• Race riots in Watts suburb of Los Angeles in 1965
  occurred after the perceived injustice of the
  arrest of 3 black family members
• Tensions boiled over and riots broke out
• 35m property was damaged, 34 people were killed,
  and the military had to be called in to restore
  order
• High level of unemployment, deprivation, and
  highly secularised (99 of the population were
  African-American)

7
Collective Violence

• Race riots in South Central Los Angeles in 1992
  were seen as a direct response to the jury
  acquittal of 4 white policemen for the beating on
  Rodney King
• Set against a background of rising unemployment
  and deep disadvantage in black communities
• 50 dead and 2300 injured
• Attacks symbolised by beating of white truck
  driver Reginald Denny

8
Relative Deprivation

• Relative deprivation A sense of having less
  than we are entitled to (Hogg Vaughan, 2005)
• Deprivation is not absolute but relative to other
  conditions (c.f., Orwell, 1962 taking
  overcrowding for granted)
• Viewed as a precondition for intergroup
  aggression (Walker Smith, 2002)
• Relative deprivation introduced in Stouffer et
  al.s (1949) and is formed through comparisons
  between experiences and expectations (Gurr, 1970)

9
Relative Deprivation

• Formalised by Davies (1969) in the J-Curve
  hypothesis
• J-Curve A graphical representation of the way in
  which relative deprivation rises when attainments
  suddenly fall short of rising expectations

10
Relative Deprivation
Relative deprivation
Living standards
Attainments
t1
t2
Time
Source Davies (1969)
11
Relative Deprivation

• While there is some suggestion that relative
  deprivation is responsible for intergroup
  aggression and conflict, it has not been
  supported by systematic research
• There is little evidence that peoples
  expectations are constructed on the basis of
  immediate past experience based on survey data
  (Taylor, 1982)

12
Types of Relative Deprivation

• Runciman (1966) made the distinction between
• Egoistic relative deprivation A feeling of
  personally having less than we feel we are
  entitled to, relative to our personal aspirations
  or to other individuals (comparisons with other
  similar individuals)
• Fraternalistic relative deprivation Sense that
  our group has less than it is entitled to,
  relative to the collective aspirations or other
  groups (group vs. group comparisons)
• These types of deprivation have been found to be
  independent in survey studies (Crosby, 1982)

13
Types of Relative Deprivation

• Research has implicated fraternalistic relative
  deprivation with social unrest
• Vanneman and Pettigrews (1972) survey found that
  whites with more negative attitude towards blacks
  were more likely to perceive their group as
  relatively poorer compared to blacks even though
  demographically they were better off
• A study on black militancy in the US was
  associated with perceptions of fraternalistic
  relative deprivation (Abéles, 1976)
• Militant Francophones in Canada felt more
  dissatisfaction and frustration when making
  intergroup salary comparisons (a fraternalistic
  indicator of relative deprivation) compared with
  those making egoistic comparisons (Guimond
  Dubé-Simard, 1983)
• Muslims in India were found to express greatest
  hostility toward Hindis (who were better off as a
  group) if they felt that were fraternalistically
  deprived (Triparthi Srivasta, 1981)

14
Factors Affecting Relative Deprivation

• Strong group identification Strong
  identification with the group is necessary for
  fraternalistic deprivation to influence
  perceptions and collective action (Kelly
  Breinlinger, 1996)
• Perceived effectiveness of action People who
  believe that taking action e.g. protesting will
  redress the imbalance shown in their perceived
  fraternalistic relative deprivation
• Perceptions of injustice Perceptions that you
  have less than you are entitled (distributive
  justice) and victim of unfair procedures
  (procedural injustice) (Tyler Lind, 1992)
• Ingroup-outgroup comparisons Likelihood for
  action depends on the similarity of the outgroup
  e.g. paradox of the contented female worker
  (Crosby, 1965)

15
Realistic Conflict

• Key feature of intergroup behaviour is
  enthnocentrism the view of things in which
  ones own group is at the centre of everything,
  and all others are scaled and rated with
  reference to it (Sumner, 1906, p. 13)
• Sherif (1962) believed that perspectives on
  enthnocentrism should not be explained in terms
  of individual or interpersonal processes but
  intergroup relations
• We cannot extrapolate from the properties of
  individuals to the characteristics of group
  situations (Sherif, 1962, p. 8)
• Intergroup relations Relations between two or
  more groups and their respective members
  whenever individuals belonging to one group
  interact with another group or its members in
  terms of their group identifications, we have an
  instance of intergroup behaviour (Sherif, 1962)

16
Realistic Conflict

• Competition between groups over scarce resources
  results in conflict and ethnocentrism
• E.g., Sherifs (1966) summer camp experiments
• Example of realistic intergroup hostility and
  intergroup-co-operation
• Four phases
• Spontaneous friendship formation
• Ingroup formation
• Intergroup competition
• Intergroup cooperation (superordinate goals)

17
Realistic Conflict

• Notable points from Sherifs (1966) summer camp
  experiments
• Latent enthnocentrism existed in absence of
  competition
• Ingroups formed despite the fact that friends
  were actually outgroup members
• Prejudice, discrimination, and ethnocentrism
  arose as a consequence of real intergroup
  conflict
• Boys in summer camp did not have authoritarian or
  dogmatic personalities
• The less frustrated group (winning group) was
  usually the one that expressed greater intergroup
  aggression
• Simple contact between members of opposing groups
  did not improve intergroup relations

18
Realistic Conflict Theory

• Sherif (1966) proposed realistic conflict theory
• Individuals who share common goals that require
  interdependence will tend to cooperate and form a
  group
• Individuals who have mutually exclusive goals
  (e.g., scarce resources) will be involved in
  interindividual competition which prevents group
  formation and contributes to the collapse of an
  existing group
• At the intergroup level, mutually exclusive goals
  between groups results in realistic intergroup
  conflict and ethnocentrism while shared
  (superordinate) goals results in cooperation

19
Social Identity Minimal Groups

• Formation of groups spontaneously creates
  intergroup conflict and ethnocentric attitudes
  very quickly even without realistic conflict
• Spontaneous emergent of conflict studied by
  Tajfel et al. (1971) using the minimal group
  paradigm
• Minimal group paradigm Experimental methodology
  to investigate the effect of social
  categorisation alone on group behaviour
• Truly a minimal group effect
• Groups formed on a flimsy criterion
• No past history or possible future
• Members had no knowledge of other members
• No self-interest in the money allocation task

20
Social Identity Minimal Groups

• Allocation of points in grid game to ingroup and
  outgroup in minimal group paradigm
• Four possible strategies
• Fairness
• Maximum joint profit
• Maximum ingroup profit
• Maximum difference

21
Group Formation

• Minimal Group Experiments (Tajfel, 1981)

Matrix 1 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7
Matrix 1 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Matrix 2 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11
Matrix 2 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 13 25 27 29
Matrix 3 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Matrix 3 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Matrix 4 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Matrix 4 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
22
Group Formation

• Minimal Group Experiments (Tajfel, 1981)

Matrix 1 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7
Matrix 1 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Matrix 2 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11
Matrix 2 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 13 25 27 29
Matrix 3 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Matrix 3 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Matrix 4 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Matrix 4 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
23
Group Formation

• Minimal Group Experiments (Tajfel, 1981)

Matrix 1 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7
Matrix 1 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Matrix 2 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11
Matrix 2 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 13 25 27 29
Matrix 3 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Matrix 3 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Matrix 4 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Matrix 4 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
24
Group Formation

• Minimal Group Experiments (Tajfel, 1981)

Matrix 1 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7
Matrix 1 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Matrix 2 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11
Matrix 2 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 13 25 27 29
Matrix 3 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Matrix 3 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Matrix 4 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Matrix 4 Klee Group Kandinsky Group 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
25
Social Identity Minimal Groups

• Therefore
• Mere awareness of being in a group can influence
  individuals perceptions of other group members
• Individuals become depersonalised group
  attributes rather than personal become salient
  in group situations
• The group does not have to be well defined
• Strong effect in hundreds of minimal group
  experiments which
• Allocated people to groups completely randomly
• Removed the money-points

26
Social Identity Approach

• Social identity theory (Tajfel Turner, 1979) is
  the leading theory in social psychological
  analysis of group processes
• Social identity theory Theory of group
  membership and intergroup relations based on
  self-categorisation, social comparison, and the
  construction of a shared self-definition in terms
  of ingroup defining properties
• Self-categorisation theory
• Sub-theory of identity theory (Turner et al.,
  1987) a significant development in the Social
  Identity Approach
• Theory of how the process of categorising oneself
  as a group member produces social identity and
  group and intergroup behaviours

27
Social Identity Approach

• According to social identity theory people have a
  social identity which is the self-concept which
  is derived from membership of social groups
• This is distinct from personal identity group
  processes are not confined to personality traits
  and interpersonal relations (relations between
  individuals)
• Social identities prescribe appropriate behaviour
  and specific tactics for group members (e.g.,
  group norms)
• Social identities predict a number of processes
  including
• Ethnocentrism
• Ingroup favouritism
• Intergroup differentiation
• Stereotyping Widely shared and simplified
  evaluative image of a social group and its members

28
Self-Categorisation Theory

• Recall two processes that are responsible
  social categorisation and social comparison
• People represent social categories and groups as
  prototypes a fuzzy representation of the
  typical/defining features of a category
• Two principles driven by prototypes
• Metacontrast principle Maximising the ratio of
  differences to ingroup positions to
  differences to outgroup positions
• Entitativity The property of a group that makes
  it seem like a coherent, distinct, and unitary
  entity
• Depersonalisation The perception and treatment
  of self and others not as unique individual
  persons but as prototypical embodiments of a
  social group

29
Metacontrast Principle
Other member
Prototype of Ingroup members
Me
Other member
Prototype of Outgroup members
Social comparison processes
Other member
Intergroup contrasts e.g. Dehumanisation
Intragroup contrasts e.g. Depersonalisation
30
Categorisation and Relative Homogeneity

• Social categorisation gives rise to some clear
  stereotyping effects
• Accentuation effect Overestimation of
  similarities among people within a category and
  dissimilarities between people from different
  categories
• Relative homogeneity effect Tendency to see
  outgroup members the same, and ingroup members as
  more differentiated (Brigham Barkowitz, 1978)
• The homogeneity effect is affected by group size
  as well when a group is a majority the outgroup
  is seen as less variable when the group is a
  minority the ingroup is seen as less variable
  (Simon Brown, 1987)

31
Categorisation and Relative Homogeneity
Source Brigham and Barkowitz (1978)
32
Categorisation and Relative Homogeneity
Source Simon and Brown (1987)
33
Collective Behaviour and the Crowd

• Collective behaviour The behaviour of people en
  masse such as in a crowd, protest, or riot
• People in crowds usually behave in a uniform
  manner and can be volatile, highly emotional, and
  in violation of social norms
• People do not usually resort to impulsive,
  aggressive and selfish behaviour because this
  contravenes social norms and individuals are
  clearly identifiable
• In crowds identifiability is significantly
  reduced and people resort to such behaviours if
  there is sufficient cause
• Deindividuation is an important mediating factor
  (e.g., Zimbardo, 1970 Zimbardo et al., 1982)
• However, aggression and antisocial behaviour may
  be overridden by norms associated with the group
  (Johnson Downing, 1979)

34
Collective Behaviour and the Crowd
Source Johnson Downing (1979)
35
Inter-Group Co-operation

• Much effort has been made to identify sources of
  group co-operation rather than conflict
• Realistic conflict theory (Sherif, 1966) suggests
  that the existence of superordinate goals and
  cooperation reduces intergroup hostility, also
  avoidance of mutually exclusive goals
• Social identity theory (Tajfel Turner, 1979)
  suggests that hostility will be reduced if
  intergroup stereotypes become less derogatory and
  polarised and legitimised non-violent forms of
  intergroup competition exist

36
Inter-Group Co-operation

• Much effort has been made to identify sources of
  group co-operation rather than conflict
• Solutions sought to break down out-group
  prejudice are...
• (1) Promoting interpersonal contact to break-down
  attitudes derived from social comparison
• (2) Creating super-ordinate goals to promote
  intergroup cooperation on a task with mutual
  benefit
• . Minimizing importance of group boundaries and
  perceptions of group differences

37
Interpersonal Contact

• Contact hypothesis (Allport , 1954) View that
  bringing members of opposing social groups
  together will improve intergroup relations and
  reduce prejudice and discrimination
• Allport suggested that contact should meet
  certain criteria
• It should be prolonged and cooperative (c.f.
  Sherif, 1966)
• Integration should be institutionally supported
• Groups should be of equal social status
• A melting pot policy Intergroup contact policy
  aiming to be colour blind and ignore intergroup
  differences
• Ignores fact that some groups have been
  disadvantaged in the past
• Ignores reality of ethnic/cultural differences
• Minority groups become stripped of their
  identity and may lead to perceptions of
  disadvantage
• Multiculturalism policy drawing attention to and
  responding to reality of intergroup differences
  to change negative attitudes and preserve
  integrity of cultural groups (Hornsey Hogg,
  2000)
• Research has indicated that contact alone is not
  sufficient and attitudes towards outgroup members
  tend to change only if contact is positive and if
  the person is highly typical member of the
  outgroup (Wilder, 1984)

38
Interpersonal Contact
More favorable
Less favorable
Source Wilder (1984)
39
Superordinate goals

• Sherif (1966) illustrated the effectiveness of
  superordinate goals (goals that have an outcome
  of mutual benefit to groups) to reduce intergroup
  conflict
• European Union is a good example illustrating the
  effectiveness of a superordinate identity
  (Europe) in inter-subgroup relations (nations
  within Europe) (e.g., Cinnirella, 1997)
• Resistance against a shared threat is a common
  superordinate goal (Dion, 1979)
• Will not work if groups fail to achieve the goal
  (e.g., Worchel, et al., 1977)
• Unsuccessful intergroup cooperation to achieve as
  superordinate goal may worsen intergroup
  relations if failure can be attributed to the
  outgroup (e.g., Worchel Novell, 1980)