Social Psych Week 11
Social Psych Week 11 Psych 360
Popular in Social Psych
Popular in Psychology (PSYC)
This 6 page Class Notes was uploaded by Katie Truppo on Friday August 26, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to Psych 360 at University of Tennessee - Knoxville taught by Dr. Lowell Gaertner in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 4 views. For similar materials see Social Psych in Psychology (PSYC) at University of Tennessee - Knoxville.
Reviews for Social Psych Week 11
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 08/26/16
Groups Cont. II. Intergroup vs. Interindividual Competition th Armed conﬂicts during the ﬁnal decade of the 20 century (i.e., 1900 – 2000) killed 30 million persons and made refugees of another 45 million. A. The Discontinuity Eﬀect (Insko & Schopler) Tendency for intergroup interactions to be more competitive than interindividual interactions. 1. Domain of Discontinuity Correspondents of outcomes: what’s best for one person is best for another Situations involving moderately non-correspondent outcomes Non-correspondence occurs to the extent to which outcomes that are good for one party are bad for the other party. 2. Demonstrating Discontinuity Two 3-person groups or 2 individuals interact on a Prisoners Dilemma Matrix Interacting groups compete on 65% of trials Interacting individuals compete on 10% of trials B. Explaining the Discontinuity Eﬀect: Fear and Greed 1. Outgroup Schema (FEAR) Through social learning, we have generalized expectation that other groups are abrasive/bad but we don’t think that about individuals 2. Social Support for Shared Self-Interest (GREED) 3. Identiﬁability (GREED) C. Evidence for the Explanations C. 1. Outgroup Schema E.g., Hoyle, Pinkley, & Insko (1989) 6-Participants sat in separate cubicles and anticipated an interactions Told either 1 (alone) person interact, or 3 person interact Expected interaction to be more competitive and abrasive when interacting against 3 than 1 All that mattered was who expected to work with, when expected a group they felt that it would be more abrasive/less friendly E.g., Insko, Schopler, Hoyle, Dardis, & Graetz, (1990) Added Y choice (withdrawal choice) Chose X or Y based on belief that other group would choose opposite (competition) C. 2. Social Support For Shared Self Interest E.g., Wildschut, Insko, & Gaertner (2001) 5 people in separate cubicles ostensibly interact with group in other room on PD- matrix Told other group chose X (cooperative choice) so no fear Each person voted for group’s decision by circling choice on a form passed from cubicle to cubicle Either saw that one member selected Coop and one selected Comp OR received blank form People with social support for competition (saw at least one Comp vote) competed more frequently than people without support C. 3. Identiﬁability E.g., Schopler, Insko, Drigotas, Wieselquist, Pemberton, & Cox (1995) Intergroup or interindividual interaction on PD-matrix Each person announced their name and personal choice into a microphone Told decision would be broadcasted to experimenter and opponent OR just to the experimenter Identiﬁability had no eﬀect on inter-individual competition Identiﬁability decreased competition between groups Prejudice 1776: Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 1865: Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolished slavery in the United States 1964: Title II of the Civil Rights Act, prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation (hotels, restaurants, etc) based on race, color, religion, or national origin. 1989: NSF study of PhD scientists: White scientists paid 11% more than Black scientists I. Deﬁning Prejudice, Stereotypes, & Discrimination Prejudice: positive or negative attitude, evaluation of the members of a social group Stereotyping: beliefs about the members of a social group Discrimination: positive or negative behavior toward members of a social group II. “Causes” of Prejudice A. Personality E.g., Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1981) Correlates with political conservatism 1. Deﬁning Right-wing Authoritarianism 1. Authoritarian submission: high degree of submission to perceived authorities Once leader is identiﬁed, they do not question e.g., High RWA less punitive toward authorities who beat prisoners & order killing of civilians in war. 2. Authoritarian aggression: aggressive toward persons if sanctioned by established authorities. Once leader dictates aggression, they carry it out e.g., High RWA more strongly believe harsh punishment works and criminals deserve it. 3. Conventionalism: high degree of adherence to social conventions Traditions are extremely important e.g., High RWA are more orthodox members of religions & believe most strongly in the religious teachings. 2. Right-wing Authoritarianism and Prejudice High RWA report more negative attitudes toward a variety of minority groups: Aboriginal People, Africans, Arabs, Blacks, Chinese, Feminists, Filipinos, Hispanics, Homosexuals, Jews, Pakistanis, Sikhs. . . “equal opportunity bigots” (Altemeyer, 1994, p. 136) High RWA are high in hatred for any group besides their own B. Learning Prejudice and stereotypes, like other attitude and beliefs, can be learned 1. Observational Learning Friends and family provide and form a shared social reality Media transmits information (accurate or not) about social groups Eagly’s role theory: infer internal dispositions from the roles men and women occupy in society Make internal attribution about why women/men are in certain roles Women tend to occupy lower power roles (e.g., bank teller vs. bank president) and appear compliant 2. Operant Conditioning Reinforced for expressing certain values 3. Classical Conditioning Perhaps skin color can serve as a conditioned stimulus C. Intergroup Relations Intergroup Theories Realistic Group Conﬂict Theory (Sherif, 1961) Sense of group unity becomes stronger, sense of hate becomes stronger for other groups Conﬂict between groups causes prejudice Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1978) Internalize groups we belong to If groups become salient, we deﬁne and evaluate self in terms of group Intergroup Research Robber’s Cave Studies (Sherif et al., 1961) Stage 1: Divided 20 boys into 2 groups, hiking, swimming, created a name for group (e.g., Eagles and Rattlers) Stage 2: Intergroup Conﬂict, series of athletic events & winner receive pocket knives Witnessed outgroup hostility Stage 3: Intergroup Cooperation (Superordinate Goals) Fix water tower, push bus from mud When worked with other group (co-operation) caused less hostility and more friendship Minimal Group Paradigm (Tafjel, 1970) Assigned British school boys to novel groups No existing group stereotypes or hostilities No knowledge of personal identities of ingroup & outgroup members Categorization to groups evidenced a number of attitudinal, behavioral, and cognitive eﬀects When people are categorized, they assume that people in the same group are more similar 1. Ingroup Favoritism (Tajfel, 1970; Brewer & Silver, 1978) 2. Assumed Similarity (Allen & Wilder, 1979) 3. Outgroup Homogeneity (“they’re all the same”)
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'