Social Psych: Intergroup Relations

intergroup relations

The study of how groups think, feel and behave, in relation to one another

social categorization

thinking about people as ingroup members or outgroup members

realistic conflict theory

proposes that intergroup conflict arises from the perception of scarce resources

the Minimal group Paradigm

participants had to choose from a table how they would allocate points

Maximum fairness

points are evenly divided between groups

Participants tended to allocate more points to ingroup members than outgroup members

maximum differentiation

maximize the difference in points between the ingroup and outgroup member

the category differentiation model

imposing a classification system on stimuli leads to accentuation

Self-categorization theory

When a group membership is salient, people self-categorize and undergo depersonalization→ take on characteristics associated with the group prototype

meta contrast principle

maximize intergroup differences, minimize intra-group differences

subjective uncertainty reduction hypothesis

uncertainty is an aversive feeling

• we are motivated to reduce our uncertainty

ingroup favouritism

the uncertainty reducing effects of group identification imbue the ingroup with a positive valence

optimal distinctiveness theory

people will want to identify with groups that allow them to balance both need for assimilation and need for differentiation

need for assimilation

feeling like you belong in a collective

need for differentiation

feeling like you are social and distinct

Self anchoring theory

focuses mainly on explaining ingroup favouritism in minimal group contexts

social projection

tendency to predict other people’s feelings, thoughts, and behaviours based on our own feelings, thoughts and behaviours

literal immortality

transcending death through belief in an afterlife

symbolic immortality

future group members will remember you when you are gone

mortality salience

being reminded of your inevitable, impending death

Ingroup positivity vs. Outgroup derogation

feeling positively about the ingroup does not always mean feeling negatively about the outgroup

Integrated threat theory

combines ideas from realistic conflict theory and terror management theory

what are the four types of threat posed by outgroup members

realistic threat

Symbolic threat

Intergroup anxiety

Negative stereotypes

Realistic threat

When the outgroup threatens the ingroup’s safety, power, and/or access to resources

symbolic threat

when outgroup threatens the ingroup’s cultural worldview

intergroup anxiety

personal fear or discomfort when interacting with outgroup members

negative stereotypes

over generalized beliefs about outgroup members

relative deprivation

Feelings of resentment arising the perceiving that you have less than what you deserve compared to others

Recategorization

creating new categories that include outgroup members

decategorization

Viewing people as individuals, not as group members

common ingroup identity model

targets recategorization

Used the minimal groups paradigm

Common ingroup identity model: strengths and limitations

good for discussing situations where large group contains multiple subgroups

Subgroup members may resist recategorization

reasons for resisting a common ingroup identity

subgroups may not be equal in size, power, status

The superordinate group may be less distinctive

crossed categorization

making two group memberships salient as once

category differentiation model

we accentuation difference between groups and similarities within groups

Crossed categories: strengths and limitations

allows for distinct subgroup identities to remain intact

Risk of highlighting “double outgroups”

Suggests people only categorize along two dimensions as a time, but this may not be realistic

multiple categorization

encourage people to use many different ways of categorizing people rather than just one or two

Can lead to decategorization

social identity complexity

The perceived overlap and number of identities that a person possesses

low complexity

identities are highly overlapped

high complexity

many non-overlapping identities

Intergroup relational identity

defining the superordinate group in terms of cooperative, mutually beneficial subgroups relationships

what are the 3 actions for constructing an intergroup relational identity

1. Rhetoric championing intergroup collaboration

2. Exemplifying cooperation through boundary spanning

3. Forming a boundary spanning leader coalition with subgroup leaders

Intergroup relational identity: strengths and limitations

allows subgroup identities to remain intact

Reduce risk of ingroup projection

Difficult to make all subgroups feel valued