c82sad intergroup behaviour. what is intergroup behaviour? intergroup behaviour is “any...

C82SAD Intergroup C82SAD Intergroup BehaviourBehaviour

What is Intergroup Behaviour?What is Intergroup Behaviour?

Intergroup behaviour is “any perception, Intergroup behaviour is “any perception, cognition, or behaviour that is influenced by cognition, or behaviour that is influenced by people’s recognition that they and others are people’s recognition that they and others are members of distinct social groups” (Hogg & members of distinct social groups” (Hogg & Vaughan, 2005, p. 392)Vaughan, 2005, p. 392)

Examples of intergroup behaviour:Examples of intergroup behaviour: International and intra-national conflictsInternational and intra-national conflicts Political confrontationsPolitical confrontations Interethnic relationsInterethnic relations Negotiations between unions and managementNegotiations between unions and management Competitive team sportsCompetitive team sports

What is Intergroup Behaviour?What is Intergroup Behaviour? Intergroup behaviourIntergroup behaviour is regulated by individuals’ is regulated by individuals’

awareness of and identification with different social awareness of and identification with different social groupsgroups

Therefore presence of the group can be real, but it can Therefore presence of the group can be real, but it can also be also be impliedimplied – remember Allport (1935) – remember Allport (1935)

As in definition of social psychology – this a common As in definition of social psychology – this a common assumption that social behaviour is influenced by the assumption that social behaviour is influenced by the social categories to which we belong – known as a social categories to which we belong – known as a ‘metatheory’‘metatheory’

Intergroup behaviour brings together literature on:Intergroup behaviour brings together literature on: Social influence and social facilitationSocial influence and social facilitation Group processesGroup processes Prejudice and discriminationPrejudice and discrimination

Relative Deprivation and Social Relative Deprivation and Social UnrestUnrest

Berkowitz (1962) suggests that intergroup Berkowitz (1962) suggests that intergroup prejudice and discriminatory behaviour is a prejudice and discriminatory behaviour is a function of:function of:

Aversive events (e.g., extreme climactic conditions)Aversive events (e.g., extreme climactic conditions) Aggressive associations (e.g., situational cues, past Aggressive associations (e.g., situational cues, past

associations)associations)

Berkowitz used this in his ‘long hot summer’ Berkowitz used this in his ‘long hot summer’ explanation for collective violence using LA explanation for collective violence using LA Watt’s (1965) and Detroit (1967) race riots which Watt’s (1965) and Detroit (1967) race riots which occurred during excessive ‘heatwave’ conditionsoccurred during excessive ‘heatwave’ conditions

Perceptions of ‘relative deprivation’ was an Perceptions of ‘relative deprivation’ was an important factorimportant factor

Collective ViolenceCollective ViolenceRelative deprivation

Frustration

Aversive environmental conditions(e.g., ‘heatwave’) amplifies frustration

Individual acts of aggression exacerbated byaggressive stimuli (e.g., armed police)

Individual acts of aggression

Aggression becomes more widespread andAssumes role of dominant response

Source: Berkowitz (1972)

Aggression spreads rapidly through socialfacilitation process

Collective violence

Collective ViolenceCollective 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)

Collective ViolenceCollective 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

Relative DeprivationRelative Deprivation

Relative deprivationRelative deprivation: “A sense of having less : “A sense of having less than we are entitled to” (Hogg & Vaughan, 2005)than we are entitled to” (Hogg & Vaughan, 2005)

Deprivation is not absolute but relative to other Deprivation is not absolute but relative to other conditions (c.f., Orwell, 1962 – taking conditions (c.f., Orwell, 1962 – taking overcrowding for granted)overcrowding for granted)

Viewed as a precondition for intergroup Viewed as a precondition for intergroup aggression (Walker & Smith, 2002)aggression (Walker & Smith, 2002)

Relative deprivation introduced in Stouffer et Relative deprivation introduced in Stouffer et al.’s (1949) and is formed through comparisons al.’s (1949) and is formed through comparisons between experiences and expectations (Gurr, between experiences and expectations (Gurr, 1970)1970)

Relative DeprivationRelative Deprivation

Formalised by Davies (1969) in the J-Formalised by Davies (1969) in the J-Curve hypothesisCurve hypothesis

J-CurveJ-Curve: A graphical representation of the : A graphical representation of the way in which relative deprivation rises way in which relative deprivation rises when attainments suddenly fall short of when attainments suddenly fall short of rising expectationsrising expectations

Relative DeprivationRelative DeprivationLi

ving

sta

ndar

ds

Timet1 t2

Relativedeprivation

Attainments

Source: Davies (1969)

Relative DeprivationRelative DeprivationWhile there is some suggestion that While there is some suggestion that

relative deprivation is responsible for relative deprivation is responsible for intergroup aggression and conflict, it intergroup aggression and conflict, it has not been supported by systematic has not been supported by systematic researchresearch

There is little evidence that people’s There is little evidence that people’s expectations are constructed on the expectations are constructed on the basis of immediate past experience basis of immediate past experience based on survey data (Taylor, 1982)based on survey data (Taylor, 1982)

Types of Relative DeprivationTypes of Relative Deprivation

Runciman (1966) made the distinction between:Runciman (1966) made the distinction between: Egoistic relative deprivationEgoistic relative deprivation: A feeling of : A feeling of

personally having less than we feel we are personally having less than we feel we are entitled to, relative to our personal aspirations or entitled to, relative to our personal aspirations or to other individuals (comparisons with other to other individuals (comparisons with other similar individuals)similar individuals)

Fraternalistic relative deprivationFraternalistic relative deprivation: Sense that : Sense that our group has less than it is entitled to, relative our group has less than it is entitled to, relative to the collective aspirations or other groups to the collective aspirations or other groups (group vs. group comparisons)(group vs. group comparisons)

These types of deprivation have been found to These types of deprivation have been found to be independent in survey studies (Crosby, 1982)be independent in survey studies (Crosby, 1982)

Types of Relative DeprivationTypes of Relative Deprivation Research has implicated fraternalistic relative deprivation Research has implicated fraternalistic relative deprivation

with social unrestwith social unrest Vanneman and Pettigrew’s (1972) survey found that whites Vanneman and Pettigrew’s (1972) survey found that whites

with more negative attitude towards blacks were more likely with more negative attitude towards blacks were more likely to perceive their group as relatively poorer compared to to perceive their group as relatively poorer compared to blacks even though demographically they were better off blacks even though demographically they were better off

A study on black militancy in the US was associated with A study on black militancy in the US was associated with perceptions of fraternalistic relative deprivation (Abperceptions of fraternalistic relative deprivation (Abééles, les, 1976)1976)

Militant ‘Francophones’ in Canada felt more dissatisfaction Militant ‘Francophones’ in Canada felt more dissatisfaction and frustration when making intergroup salary comparisons and frustration when making intergroup salary comparisons (a fraternalistic indicator of relative deprivation) compared (a fraternalistic indicator of relative deprivation) compared with those making egoistic comparisons (Guimond & Dubwith those making egoistic comparisons (Guimond & Dubéé--Simard, 1983)Simard, 1983)

Muslims in India were found to express greatest hostility Muslims in India were found to express greatest hostility toward Hindis (who were better off as a group) if they felt that toward Hindis (who were better off as a group) if they felt that were fraternalistically deprived (Triparthi & Srivasta, 1981)were fraternalistically deprived (Triparthi & Srivasta, 1981)

Factors Affecting Relative Factors Affecting Relative DeprivationDeprivation

Strong group identificationStrong group identification: Strong identification with : Strong identification with the group is necessary for fraternalistic deprivation to the group is necessary for fraternalistic deprivation to influence perceptions and collective action (Kelly & influence perceptions and collective action (Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996)Breinlinger, 1996)

Perceived effectiveness of actionPerceived effectiveness of action: People who believe : People who believe that taking action e.g. protesting will redress the that taking action e.g. protesting will redress the imbalance shown in their perceived fraternalistic relative imbalance shown in their perceived fraternalistic relative deprivationdeprivation

Perceptions of iPerceptions of injnjusticeustice: Perceptions that you have : Perceptions that you have less than you are entitled (distributive justice) and victim less than you are entitled (distributive justice) and victim of unfair procedures (procedural injustice) (Tyler & Lind, of unfair procedures (procedural injustice) (Tyler & Lind, 1992)1992)

Ingroup-outgroup comparisonsIngroup-outgroup comparisons: Likelihood for action : Likelihood for action depends on the similarity of the outgroup e.g. ‘paradox of depends on the similarity of the outgroup e.g. ‘paradox of the contented female worker’ (Crosby, 1965)the contented female worker’ (Crosby, 1965)

Key feature of intergroup behaviour is ‘enthnocentrism’ = Key feature of intergroup behaviour is ‘enthnocentrism’ = “the view of things in which one’s own group is at the centre “the view of things in which one’s own group is at the centre of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it” (Sumner, 1906, p. 13)reference to it” (Sumner, 1906, p. 13)

Sherif (1962) believed that perspectives on enthnocentrism Sherif (1962) believed that perspectives on enthnocentrism should not be explained in terms of individual or should not be explained in terms of individual or interpersonal processes but intergroup relationsinterpersonal processes but intergroup relations

““We cannot extrapolate from the properties of individuals to We cannot extrapolate from the properties of individuals to the characteristics of group situations” (Sherif, 1962, p. 8)the characteristics of group situations” (Sherif, 1962, p. 8)

Intergroup relationsIntergroup relations: Relations between two or more : Relations between two or more groups and their respective members – whenever groups and their respective members – whenever individuals belonging to one group interact with another individuals belonging to one group interact with another group or its members in terms of their group identifications, group or its members in terms of their group identifications, we have an instance of intergroup behaviour (Sherif, 1962)we have an instance of intergroup behaviour (Sherif, 1962)

Realistic ConflictRealistic Conflict

Competition between groups over scarce Competition between groups over scarce resources results in conflict and ‘ethnocentrism’resources results in conflict and ‘ethnocentrism’

E.g.,E.g., Sherif’s Sherif’s (1966) summer camp (1966) summer camp experimentsexperiments

Example of ‘realistic’ intergroup hostility and Example of ‘realistic’ intergroup hostility and intergroup-co-operationintergroup-co-operation

Four phases:Four phases:1.1. Spontaneous friendship formationSpontaneous friendship formation2.2. Ingroup formationIngroup formation3.3. Intergroup competitionIntergroup competition4.4. Intergroup cooperation (superordinate goals)Intergroup cooperation (superordinate goals)



Notable points from Sherif’s (1966) Notable points from Sherif’s (1966) summer camp experiments:summer camp experiments:

Latent enthnocentrism existed in absence of competitionLatent enthnocentrism existed in absence of competition Ingroups formed despite the fact that friends were Ingroups formed despite the fact that friends were

actually outgroup membersactually outgroup members Prejudice, discrimination, and ethnocentrism arose as a Prejudice, discrimination, and ethnocentrism arose as a

consequence of real intergroup conflictconsequence of real intergroup conflict Boys in summer camp did not have authoritarian or Boys in summer camp did not have authoritarian or

dogmatic personalitiesdogmatic personalities The less frustrated group (winning group) was usually The less frustrated group (winning group) was usually

the one that expressed greater intergroup aggressionthe one that expressed greater intergroup aggression Simple contact between members of opposing groups Simple contact between members of opposing groups

did not improve intergroup relationsdid not improve intergroup relations

Realistic Conflict TheoryRealistic Conflict Theory

Sherif (1966) proposed realistic conflict theorySherif (1966) proposed realistic conflict theory Individuals who share common goals that Individuals who share common goals that

require interdependence will tend to cooperate require interdependence will tend to cooperate and form a groupand form a group

Individuals who have mutually exclusive goals Individuals who have mutually exclusive goals (e.g., scarce resources) will be involved in (e.g., scarce resources) will be involved in interindividual competition which prevents group interindividual competition which prevents group formation and contributes to the collapse of an formation and contributes to the collapse of an existing groupexisting group

At the intergroup level, mutually exclusive goals At the intergroup level, mutually exclusive goals between groups results in realistic intergroup between groups results in realistic intergroup conflict and ethnocentrism while shared conflict and ethnocentrism while shared (superordinate) goals results in cooperation(superordinate) goals results in cooperation

Social Identity: Minimal GroupsSocial Identity: Minimal Groups

Formation of groups spontaneously creates Formation of groups spontaneously creates intergroup conflict and ethnocentric attitudes intergroup conflict and ethnocentric attitudes very quickly – even without ‘realistic conflict’very quickly – even without ‘realistic conflict’

Spontaneous emergent of conflict studied by Spontaneous emergent of conflict studied by Tajfel et al. (1971) using the ‘minimal group Tajfel et al. (1971) using the ‘minimal group paradigm’paradigm’

Minimal group paradigmMinimal group paradigm: Experimental : Experimental methodology to investigate the effect of social methodology to investigate the effect of social categorisation alone on group behaviourcategorisation alone on group behaviour

Truly a ‘minimal group’ effect:Truly a ‘minimal group’ effect: Groups formed on a flimsy criterionGroups formed on a flimsy criterion No past history or possible futureNo past history or possible future Members had no knowledge of other membersMembers had no knowledge of other members No self-interest in the money allocation taskNo self-interest in the money allocation task


Allocation of points in grid game to ingroup Allocation of points in grid game to ingroup and outgroup in minimal group paradigmand outgroup in minimal group paradigm

Four possible strategies:Four possible strategies:FairnessFairnessMaximum joint profitMaximum joint profitMaximum ingroup profitMaximum ingroup profitMaximum differenceMaximum difference

Group FormationGroup Formation

Matrix 1Matrix 1 KleeKlee

GroupGroup

KandinskyKandinsky

GroupGroup

1919 1818 1717 1616 1515 1414 1313 1212 1111 1010 99 88 77

11 33 55 77 99 1111 1313 1515 1717 1919 2121 2323 2525


GroupGroup

KandinskyKandinsky

GroupGroup

2323 2222 2121 2020 1919 1818 1717 1616 1515 1414 1313 1212 1111

55 77 99 1111 1313 1515 1717 1919 2121 1313 2525 2727 2929


GroupGroup

KandinskyKandinsky

GroupGroup

77 88 99 1010 1111 1212 1313 1414 1515 1616 1717 1818 1919

11 33 55 77 99 1111 1313 1515 1717 1919 2121 2323 2525


GroupGroup

KandinskyKandinsky

GroupGroup

1111 1212 1313 1414 1515 1616 1717 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323

55 77 99 1111 1313 1515 1717 1919 2121 2323 2525 2727 2929

Minimal Group Experiments (Tajfel, 1981)Minimal Group Experiments (Tajfel, 1981)

Minimal Group Experiments (Tajfel, 1981)Minimal Group Experiments (Tajfel, 1981)

Group FormationGroup Formation


GroupGroup

KandinskyKandinsky

GroupGroup

1919 1818 1717 1616 1515 1414 1313 1212 1111 1010 99 88 77

11 33 55 77 99 1111 1313 1515 1717 1919 2121 2323 2525


GroupGroup

KandinskyKandinsky

GroupGroup

2323 2222 2121 2020 1919 1818 1717 1616 1515 1414 1313 1212 1111

55 77 99 1111 1313 1515 1717 1919 2121 1313 2525 2727 2929


GroupGroup

KandinskyKandinsky

GroupGroup

77 88 99 1010 1111 1212 1313 1414 1515 1616 1717 1818 1919

11 33 55 77 99 1111 1313 1515 1717 1919 2121 2323 2525


GroupGroup

KandinskyKandinsky

GroupGroup

1111 1212 1313 1414 1515 1616 1717 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323

55 77 99 1111 1313 1515 1717 1919 2121 2323 2525 2727 2929


Therefore:Therefore: Mere awareness of being in a group can influence Mere awareness of being in a group can influence

individuals’ perceptions of other group membersindividuals’ perceptions of other group members Individuals become ‘Individuals become ‘depersonaliseddepersonalised’ – group ’ – group

attributes rather than personal become ‘salient’ in attributes rather than personal become ‘salient’ in group situationsgroup situations

The group does not have to be well definedThe group does not have to be well defined Strong effect in hundreds of minimal group Strong effect in hundreds of minimal group

experiments which:experiments which: Allocated people to groups completely randomly Allocated people to groups completely randomly Removed the money-points Removed the money-points

Social Identity ApproachSocial Identity Approach Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) is the Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) is the

leading theory in social psychological analysis of group leading theory in social psychological analysis of group processesprocesses

Social identity theorySocial identity theory: Theory of group membership and : Theory of group membership and intergroup relations based on self-categorisation, social intergroup relations based on self-categorisation, social comparison, and the construction of a shared self-comparison, and the construction of a shared self-definition in terms of ingroup defining propertiesdefinition in terms of ingroup defining properties

Self-categorisation theorySelf-categorisation theory: : Sub-theory of identity theory (Turner et al., 1987) a Sub-theory of identity theory (Turner et al., 1987) a

significant development in the ‘Social Identity significant development in the ‘Social Identity Approach’Approach’

Theory of how the process of categorising oneself as Theory of how the process of categorising oneself as a group member produces social identity and group a group member produces social identity and group and intergroup behavioursand intergroup behaviours

Social Identity ApproachSocial Identity Approach According to social identity theory people have a ‘According to social identity theory people have a ‘social social

identityidentity’ which is the self-concept which is derived from ’ which is the self-concept which is derived from membership of social groupsmembership of social groups

This is distinct from ‘This is distinct from ‘personal identitypersonal identity’ – group ’ – group processes are not confined to personality traits and processes are not confined to personality traits and interpersonal relations (relations between individuals)interpersonal relations (relations between individuals)

Social identities prescribe appropriate behaviour and Social identities prescribe appropriate behaviour and specific tactics for group members (e.g., group norms)specific tactics for group members (e.g., group norms)

Social identities predict a number of processes including:Social identities predict a number of processes including: EthnocentrismEthnocentrism Ingroup favouritismIngroup favouritism Intergroup differentiationIntergroup differentiation Stereotyping – Widely shared and simplified evaluative image of Stereotyping – Widely shared and simplified evaluative image of

a social group and its membersa social group and its members

Self-Categorisation TheorySelf-Categorisation Theory Recall: two processes that are responsible – Recall: two processes that are responsible –

social categorisationsocial categorisation and and social comparisonsocial comparison People represent social categories and groups People represent social categories and groups

as as prototypesprototypes = a ‘fuzzy’ representation of the = a ‘fuzzy’ representation of the typical/defining features of a categorytypical/defining features of a category

Two principles driven by prototypes:Two principles driven by prototypes: Metacontrast principle: Maximising the ratio of ‘differences to Metacontrast principle: Maximising the ratio of ‘differences to

ingroup positions’ to ‘differences to outgroup positions’ingroup positions’ to ‘differences to outgroup positions’ Entitativity: The property of a group that makes it seem like a Entitativity: The property of a group that makes it seem like a

coherent, distinct, and unitary entitycoherent, distinct, and unitary entity DepersonalisationDepersonalisation = The perception and = The perception and

treatment of self and others not as unique treatment of self and others not as unique individual persons but as prototypical individual persons but as prototypical embodiments of a social groupembodiments of a social group

Metacontrast PrincipleMetacontrast Principle

Me

Other member

Other member

Other member

Intragroup contrastse.g. Depersonalisation

Prototype ofOutgroup members

Intergroup contrastse.g. Dehumanisation

Prototype ofIngroup members

Social comparisonprocesses

Categorisation and Relative Categorisation and Relative HomogeneityHomogeneity

Social categorisation gives rise to some clear Social categorisation gives rise to some clear stereotyping effectsstereotyping effects

Accentuation effectAccentuation effect: Overestimation of similarities : Overestimation of similarities among people within a category and dissimilarities among people within a category and dissimilarities between people from different categoriesbetween people from different categories

Relative homogeneity effectRelative homogeneity effect: Tendency to see : Tendency to see outgroup members the same, and ingroup members outgroup members the same, and ingroup members as more differentiated (as more differentiated (Brigham & Barkowitz, 1978)

The homogeneity effect is affected by group size as The homogeneity effect is affected by group size as well – when a group is a well – when a group is a majoritymajority the the outgroupoutgroup is is seen as seen as less variableless variable when the group is a minority when the group is a minority the the ingroupingroup is seen as is seen as less variableless variable (Simon & (Simon & Brown, 1987)Brown, 1987)


00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

2

Ea

se

of

ph

oto

gra

ph

re

co

gn

itio

n

Black White

Race of participant

Photograph ofWhite

Photograph ofBlack

Source: Brigham and Barkowitz (1978)


36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Majority Minority

Race of participant

Pe

rce

ive

d in

tra

gro

up

va

ria

bili

ty(0

-10

0) Variability of

outgroup

Variability ofingroup

Source: Simon andBrown (1987)

Collective behaviour = The behaviour of people en Collective behaviour = The behaviour of people en masse such as in a crowd, protest, or riotmasse such as in a crowd, protest, or riot

People in crowds usually behave in a uniform manner People in crowds usually behave in a uniform manner and can be volatile, highly emotional, and in violation of and can be volatile, highly emotional, and in violation of social normssocial norms

People do not usually resort to impulsive, aggressive People do not usually resort to impulsive, aggressive and selfish behaviour because this contravenes social and selfish behaviour because this contravenes social norms and individuals are clearly identifiablenorms and individuals are clearly identifiable

In crowds identifiability is significantly reduced and In crowds identifiability is significantly reduced and people resort to such behaviours if there is sufficient people resort to such behaviours if there is sufficient causecause

Deindividuation is an important mediating factor (e.g., Deindividuation is an important mediating factor (e.g., Zimbardo, 1970; Zimbardo et al., 1982)Zimbardo, 1970; Zimbardo et al., 1982)

However, aggression and antisocial behaviour may be However, aggression and antisocial behaviour may be overridden by norms associated with the group (Johnson overridden by norms associated with the group (Johnson & Downing, 1979)& Downing, 1979)

Collective Behaviour and the Collective Behaviour and the CrowdCrowd

Collective Behaviour and the Collective Behaviour and the CrowdCrowd

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Individuated Deindividuated

Condition

Ch

an

ge

in e

lec

tric

sh

oc

k

Klu Klux KlanOutfitNurse's Uniform

Source: Johnson &Downing (1979)

Much effort has been made to identify sources of Much effort has been made to identify sources of group co-operation rather than conflictgroup co-operation rather than conflict

Realistic conflict theoryRealistic conflict theory (Sherif, 1966) suggests (Sherif, 1966) suggests that the existence of superordinate goals and that the existence of superordinate goals and cooperation reduces intergroup hostility, also cooperation reduces intergroup hostility, also avoidance of mutually exclusive goalsavoidance of mutually exclusive goals

Social identity theorySocial identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) suggests that hostility will be reduced if intergroup suggests that hostility will be reduced if intergroup stereotypes become less derogatory and stereotypes become less derogatory and polarised and legitimised non-violent forms of polarised and legitimised non-violent forms of intergroup competition existintergroup competition exist

Inter-Group Co-operationInter-Group Co-operation

Much effort has been made to identify sources Much effort has been made to identify sources of group co-operation rather than conflictof group co-operation rather than conflict

Solutions sought to break down out-group Solutions sought to break down out-group prejudice are...prejudice are...

(1(1) ) Promoting interpersonal contact to break-down Promoting interpersonal contact to break-down attitudes derived from social comparisonattitudes derived from social comparison

(2) C(2) Creating super-ordinate goals to promote reating super-ordinate goals to promote intergroup cooperation on a task with mutual intergroup cooperation on a task with mutual benefit…benefit…

…….= Minimizing importance of group boundaries .= Minimizing importance of group boundaries and perceptions of group differencesand perceptions of group differences

Inter-Group Co-operationInter-Group Co-operation

Contact hypothesisContact hypothesis (Allport , 1954): View that bringing (Allport , 1954): View that bringing members of opposing social groups together will improve members of opposing social groups together will improve intergroup relations and reduce prejudice and discriminationintergroup relations and reduce prejudice and discrimination

Allport suggested that contact should meet certain criteria:Allport suggested that contact should meet certain criteria: It should be prolonged and cooperative (c.f. Sherif, 1966)It should be prolonged and cooperative (c.f. Sherif, 1966) Integration should be institutionally supportedIntegration should be institutionally supported Groups should be of equal social statusGroups should be of equal social status

A ‘melting pot’ policy: Intergroup contact policy aiming to be A ‘melting pot’ policy: Intergroup contact policy aiming to be ‘colour blind’ and ignore intergroup differences‘colour blind’ and ignore intergroup differences

Ignores fact that some groups have been disadvantaged in the pastIgnores fact that some groups have been disadvantaged in the past Ignores reality of ethnic/cultural differencesIgnores reality of ethnic/cultural differences Minority groups become ‘stripped’ of their identity and may lead to Minority groups become ‘stripped’ of their identity and may lead to

perceptions of disadvantageperceptions of disadvantage Multiculturalism: policy drawing attention to and responding to Multiculturalism: policy drawing attention to and responding to

reality of intergroup differences to change negative attitudes reality of intergroup differences to change negative attitudes and preserve integrity of cultural groups (Hornsey & Hogg, and preserve integrity of cultural groups (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000) 2000)

Research has indicated that contact alone is not sufficient and Research has indicated that contact alone is not sufficient and attitudes towards outgroup members tend to change only if attitudes towards outgroup members tend to change only if contact is positive and if the person is highly typical member of contact is positive and if the person is highly typical member of the outgroup (Wilder, 1984)the outgroup (Wilder, 1984)

Interpersonal ContactInterpersonal Contact

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5O

utg

rou

p a

ttit

ud

e

rela

tiv

e t

o n

o c

on

tac

t

Pleas

ant/t

ypic

al

Pleas

ant/a

typic

al

Unpleas

ant/t

ypic

al

Unpleas

ant/a

typica

l

Type of contact

More favorable

Less favorable

Source: Wilder (1984)

Interpersonal ContactInterpersonal Contact

Sherif (1966) illustrated the effectiveness of Sherif (1966) illustrated the effectiveness of superordinate goals (goals that have an outcome of superordinate goals (goals that have an outcome of mutual benefit to groups) to reduce intergroup conflictmutual benefit to groups) to reduce intergroup conflict

European Union is a good example illustrating the European Union is a good example illustrating the effectiveness of a superordinate identity (Europe) in effectiveness of a superordinate identity (Europe) in inter-subgroup relations (nations within Europe) (e.g., inter-subgroup relations (nations within Europe) (e.g., Cinnirella, 1997)Cinnirella, 1997)

Resistance against a shared threat is a common Resistance against a shared threat is a common superordinate goal (Dion, 1979)superordinate goal (Dion, 1979)

Will not work if groups fail to achieve the goal (e.g., Will not work if groups fail to achieve the goal (e.g., Worchel, et al., 1977)Worchel, et al., 1977)

Unsuccessful intergroup cooperation to achieve as Unsuccessful intergroup cooperation to achieve as superordinate goal may worsen intergroup relations if superordinate goal may worsen intergroup relations if failure can be attributed to the outgroup (e.g., Worchel & failure can be attributed to the outgroup (e.g., Worchel & Novell, 1980)Novell, 1980)

Superordinate goalsSuperordinate goals

c82sad intergroup behaviour. what is intergroup behaviour? intergroup behaviour is “any...

Documents

social behaviour

discriminatory behaviour

social categories

intergroup prejudice

social unrest berkowitz

past associations berkowitz

discrimination slide

discrimination prejudice