Human Relationships - Paper 2

Realistic Conflict Theory

Hostility/conflict between groups is caused by direct competition for limited resources

Sherif et al. date

1954

Sherif et al. aim

To investigate how conflict between groups arises using realistic conflict theory

Sherif et al. participants

12 y.o. white boys, protestant, both parents at home, middle class

Sherif et al. procedure pt 1

• Boys randomly allocated into 2 groups (Eagles and Rattlers)

• Groups put in competition with each other

• Winning group got prizes, losing group got nothing

• Set up situation of negative interdependence (1 group delayed to a dinner party, other group ate all the good food)

Sherif et al. results pt 1

Displayed hostility between the 2 groups, even violence/sabotage

Allport's contact hypothesis

Contact can reduce conflict and prejudice when:

1. Groups are of equal status

2. They share a common goal

3. Their interaction is supported by an authority and social norms

4. No competition between groups

Sherif et al. procedure pt 2

Had both teams work together to achieve a common goal (fixing the water tank, fixing a broken down truck with food supplies)

Sherif et al. results pt 3

• Reduced hostility between groups

• Percentage of boys who said they had a best friend in the out-group increased (10% to 25/35%)

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner 1979)

Belonging to an in-group can affect our thinking and behavior

SIT Self-esteem hypothesis

People tend to identify with an in-group that enhances their self-esteem

Cialdini et al (1976) aim

Testing the self-esteem hypothesis in SIT in college students

Cialdini et al (1976) procedure

They counted the number of students wearing college merch (sweatshirts and t-shirts) on campus after their football team just won or lost a game

Cialdini et al (1976) results

• Victory: more likely to wear college clothing + refer to the team as "we"

• Loss: less likely to wear college clothing + refer to the team as "them"

In-group bias

The tendency for people to favor/treat people from their group better than members of an out-group.

Tajfel et al. date

1971

Tajfel et al. aim

To investigate if intergroup discrimination would take place based on being put into different groups.

Tajfel et al. Participants

48 boys from a school in the UK

What was the procedure in Tajfel et al.'s study?

The boys were led to believe that their groups were formed based on preference for a painter (Klee or Kadinsky)

What task were the boys asked to perform in Tajfel et al.'s study?

Each boy was asked to award 2 other boys points (one from his group, one from the out-group)

Tajfel et al. results

The boys would choose the option that created the biggest difference in points between his in-group and the out-group

Out-group homogeneity effect

The tendency to see members of out-groups as very similar to one another

Park and Rothbart date

1982

Park and Rothbart aim

To demonstrate the out-group homogeneity effect between groups

Park and Rothbart participants

90 college females from different sororities

Park and Rothbart procedure

Asked participants to rate other sororities and themselves on how similar they are

Park and Rothbart results

They judged the out-group sorority members as being more similar to each other than girls in their own sorority

The bystander effect

Not helping in a situation that requires action

Informational social influence

When an individual's behavior changes because they look to other people for guidance on the "right" way to behave

Darley and Latane date

1968

Darley and Latane aim

To study the effect of informational social influence on the bystander effect

Darley and Latane procedure

• Control group: Alone in the room

• Experiment group: Participants filled out a questionnaire in a room with confederates

• Room started filling with smoke, confederates instructed not to react

Darley and Latane results

Control: 75% of participants went to look for help within 6 minutes Experiment: Only 10% sought help within 6 minutes

Diffusion of responsibility

An individual's feeling of obligation to act is reduced from being in a group

Steblay Date

1987

Steblay Aim

To compare helping behavior from areas of different population densities

Steblay method

Meta-analysis of 65 studies

Measured helping behavior through field experiments with confederates pretending to need help

Steblay results

Negative correlation between helping behavior and population density

Prosocial behavior

Acting in a way that benefits others

Levine et al. date

2001

Levine et al. aim

To study the effect of economic productivity and cultural values on prosocial behavior

Levine et al. “participants”

36 Major cities across the US

Levine et al. procedure

• Confederates pretend to need help (e.g. dropping an item, pretending to be a blind/injured person)

• Measured economic productivity through GDP

• Measured relative individualism/collectivism

Levine et al. results

Strong negative correlation between economic productivity and helping behavior

Weak correlation between collectivism and less helping behavior

Altruism

To do something for others without expecting self-benefit

Empathy-altruism hypothesis

When you experience empathy for someone else, you are more likely to act altruistically and help them

Batson et al. date

1981

Batson et al. aim

To investigate the empathy-altruism hypothesis

Batson et al. Procedure

• Participant + confederate "Elaine" Filled out questionnaire

• Either told they were similar or different -> high/low empathy

• Participant observed Elaine receive electric shocks

• Participant can choose to replace Elaine or not

Batson et al. conditions

• High empathy/ease of escape

• Low empathy/ease of escape

• High empathy/difficult escape

• Low empathy/difficult escape

Batson et al. results

Percentage that chose to replace Elaine:

• High empathy: 91%

• Low empathy: 18%