4 pages essay
Chae
GroupProcesses2.pptx
Group Processes pt. II
Ingroups and Outgroups
The Limits of Groups
For humans, group membership is tied to our survival
A group is not useful if everyone is allowed in
Groups need to be exclusive and limited
We don’t just want to belong, we want others not to
We view our social world through the lens of “us” and “them”
social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978)
Social Identity Theory We form our identity around our groups and derive pride, self-esteem from them
Ingroup: Any group to which I identify; “us”
Outgroup: Any group to which I do not identify; “them”
S.I.T. proposes that we will favor the ingroup and show bias to the outgroup to enhance our self-image
Henri Tajfel (side note)
Henri Tajfel is one of the most distinguished, influential social psychologists of the 20th century
In 2019, evidence showed he sexual harassed/assaulted female colleagues
Did not want his research extended to gender
The prestigious Tajfel Award was renamed last year
Ingroup favoritism
We implicitly favor our ingroups and things associated with the ingroup
We trust/cooperate with people who share similar identities to us
When you graduate, you will favor Miami alumni more when you find them
We allocate more resources to members of our own group
Americans are more willing to donate to domestic charities than international charities
We value products made by the ingroup
“Made in the USA” products rated as more favorable, but not necessarily better in quality/price
Outgroup Bias
We also derogate the outgroup in several ways
Outgroup homogeny effect The unwillingness to individuate the outgroup; ascribing similar traits to all members
“They’re all the same”
We attribute ambiguous actions from outgroup members as more hostile
We make more internal attributions for outgroup members
Ingroup vs outgroup
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=851_21Euh6c
Ingroup favoritism and outgroup bias are innate
We all have a drive to see our ingroup as dominant
Minimal group paradigm
Does this only apply to important social groups (i.e., race, gender, nationality)?
Tajfel and colleagues developed the minimal group paradigm
Minimal group paradigm An experimental manipulation wherein participants are told they belong to one or another social group with no consequence
Dot estimation method: Participants asked to guess how many dots are on the screen
Participants are told that people are either overestimators/underestimators
Minimal group paradigm
Participants in a minimal group paradigm:
Give more money to ingroup members
Assume attractive strangers are ingroup members
Report less trust in outgroup members
Situational differences
Situational differences
Intergroup conflict Conflict between the ingroup and outgroup
Intergroup conflict is usually present, but certain contexts escalate conflict:
Presence of groups
Scarcity
Conflicting goals
1. Presence of Groups
Having several members of both groups present makes conflict more likely
Individual members of different groups can cooperate better than the whole group
2. Scarcity
Groups are more likely to conflict when resources are scarce
National conflicts usually follow economic/natural disasters
South African apartheid: food/land scarcity
German persecution of Jews: economic depression
3. Conflicting goals
Intergroup conflict is more likely when goals are mutually exclusive
For one group to win, the other must lose
Examples:
Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Sports conflicts
Political campaigns
Reducing Intergroup conflict
Intergroup conflict
Two lines of research have advanced our understanding of reducing intergroup conflict:
Contact hypothesis
Superordinate goals
Contact hypothesis
Contact hypothesis The more groups are exposed to each other, the more harmony they will have
Remember: aggression is easier with distant victims
Contact helps:
Reduce homogeny effect
Find similarities
Increase empathy
Contact hypothesis: limits
Just contact is dangerous
Consider:
Before the Civil War, slaveowners had the most contact with Black Americans
Bias against Hispanics is highest in southern states
The increase of women in the workplace saw an increase in sexism
Contact hypothesis: Necessary conditions
For contact to lead to harmony, two conditions need to be met
Equal status Groups must have equal power and resources
i.e., contact between oppressors/oppressed do not help
Institutional support Groups need institutions/authority figures to help foster cooperation
Group leaders must support contact between groups, assure resources are distributed equally
Superordinate goals
Remember: mutually exclusive goals increase intergroup conflict
Superordinate goals: Goals that expand across both groups; shared goals
When groups are working towards the same goal, they are more cooperative
Superordinate goals create a superordinate identity
Superordinate identity A broad identity shared by members of both the ingroup and outgroup
Superordinate goals: 9/11 Terrorist attack
August, 2001: Bush approval rating 51%
September, 2001 (after attack): Bush approval rating 90%
Democrats/Republicans assumed the superordinate goal of healing and fighting terrorism
Superordinate identity: Americans
Robber’s Cave Study
Robber’s Cave experiment: Stage 1
22 young boys are brought to a summer camp and split into two groups
The boys do not know about the other group, spend time bonding
Name themselves the “Rattlers” and the “Eagles”
Lessons from Stage 1
Group socialization The boys started to integrate being a “Rattler” or an “Eagle” into their identity
Affective interdependence Pride, joy in their identity
Behavioral interdependence Shared similar behaviors, customs
Cussing norms
Robber’s Cave Experiment Stage 2
The boys were introduced to the other group, placed in competition
Winners got trophies and pocketknives, losers got nothing
Competition turned hostile, aggressive
Afterwards, groups were given a survey about the other campers
Preference for own group, other group was “rowdy” and “untrustworthy”
Lessons from stage 2
Presence of groups Intergroup conflict was more likely because both groups were large
Limited resources/exclusive goals Not enough trophies and pocketknives for all, competition meant someone had to lose
Homogeny of outgroup Boys could distinguish characteristics in their own group, outgroup was all the same
Robber’s Cave experiment stage 3
Boys given fun activities to do together
End-of-competition meal
Did not reduce conflict; led to a food fight
Boys given shared goals
Had to pitch in money to watch a movie
Had to pull a food truck up the hill
Campers started making friends across groups, requesting more time together
Lessons from stage 3
Contact hypothesis Merely being around the other group doesn’t help without support and resources
Superordinate goals A shared, common purpose brings groups together
Superordinate identity No longer referred to themselves as “Rattlers” or “Eagles”
