Intergroup relations notes
Meeting 2 - Intergroup conflict (Instrumental or Identity approach)
Instrumental approach
Sherif (1948) - summer boy’s camp
- The boys in the experiment were, at first, living together and sharing the living space
- Afterwards, they were divided into two groups
- Researchers asked the boys who their best friends were before dividing them, to see
whether the separation into two groups would change the situation
- The two groups soon developed their own jargons, jokes, nicknames
- Each groups selected their symbols and names which were put on their t-shirts and
caps (this enabled labeling and increasing group salience)
- The groups played team sports and soon started sabotaging each other
Working hypothesis: When two groups have conflicting aims - one group can achieve its
goals only at the expense of the other group - their members will become hostile with each
other (even though the group is composed by well-adjusted individuals)
How can two groups be brought to harmony?
- Trying to enhance harmony by pure contact between groups - results in even more
friction
- Solution: just as competition enhances friction, common endeavor should promote
harmony
- Sherif - Key is the existence of superordinate goals which neither of the groups
could achieve without the help of the other group = INTERDEPENDENCE
- After attempting to reach the common, superordinate goals - the groups even
perceived some of the boys in the opposing group to be their best friends.
Second article - also Sherif
- How to produce group memberships in the first phase? - generate situations in which
the attainment of the goals depends on the coordinated activity of all individuals
, - How to produce friction? - generate a situation in which a group can achieve their
goals only on the expense of the opposing group
Research findings
While the friction between opposing groups was getting worse, the ingroup cooperativeness
increased. Altered intergroup relations (both positive or negative) affect the nature of the
relationship of ingroup members.
Solutions for reducing intergroup friction - what was used in Sherif’s experiment and
what not used:
1) Disseminating favorable information about outgroup members - was not used
2) Making individual achievements supreme by rewards (individuation of members) was
not used
3) Involving leaders - was not used
4) Common enemy approach - bringing groups together against a common enemy group
- was not used
5) Fostering social contact through activities that are perceived as pleasant - was used
(but were not efficient, made it even worse)
6) Subordinate goals were used (were efficient)
As friction between groups decreased, so did the glorification of ingroup members. The
ratings of ingroup members did not significantly change, but the ratings of outgroup members
did
Intergroup relations can not be understood from intragroup dynamics. Intergroup
relations are determined by functional relations between groups
Identity approach
Social identity theory (Tajfel)
Exp. 1 - Minimal Group Paradigm (Tajfel)
Participants choose which group they will be in based on which artists they liked more (Klee
of Kandinsky). Later, they allocated more resources in their own group than the other one.
(proof of minimal criteria needed for groups and group favoritism to occur)
, Why did ingroup favoritism occur? - People strive for a positive social identity. Without
further information about the value of their group, expressing ingroup favoritism was the only
way in which people could positively differentiate between their group and the other.
Tajfel - dividing the world into social groups is self relevant
Social categorization accompanied with the need for positive self image elicits social
comparison with relevant out groups. Positive self image is maintained by comparison.
Self categorization → Social comparison → Social Identity
Social identity theory - can it resolve intergroup conflict? - making a common identity
salient (psychology vs physics students = students of leiden university)
Differentiating our groups from opposing groups in a positive way can be explained by the =
need for certainty and need for self esteem = positive self image
Thus, SIT consists of = cognitive processes (social comparison, self-categorization) and
motivational factors (need for a positive self image)
Social context determines which part of a person's social identity is the most salient at a given
moment (student, daughter, psychologist..)
How do groups with a negative image attached to them cope?
1) Individual mobility - trying as an individual to seek entrance to a higher status group
2) Collective action - trying as a group to improve group status
3) Social creativity - changing the comparison group or the dimension of comparison
Which of these coping styles a person will choose depends on several factors:
1) group permeability – is moving to another group possible?
2) the legitimacy - is the distinction between the two groups and discrimination fair?
3) and stability of the status differences - can the situation change?
When the boundaries for other groups are closed - legitimacy and stability become important.
Meeting 2 - Intergroup conflict (Instrumental or Identity approach)
Instrumental approach
Sherif (1948) - summer boy’s camp
- The boys in the experiment were, at first, living together and sharing the living space
- Afterwards, they were divided into two groups
- Researchers asked the boys who their best friends were before dividing them, to see
whether the separation into two groups would change the situation
- The two groups soon developed their own jargons, jokes, nicknames
- Each groups selected their symbols and names which were put on their t-shirts and
caps (this enabled labeling and increasing group salience)
- The groups played team sports and soon started sabotaging each other
Working hypothesis: When two groups have conflicting aims - one group can achieve its
goals only at the expense of the other group - their members will become hostile with each
other (even though the group is composed by well-adjusted individuals)
How can two groups be brought to harmony?
- Trying to enhance harmony by pure contact between groups - results in even more
friction
- Solution: just as competition enhances friction, common endeavor should promote
harmony
- Sherif - Key is the existence of superordinate goals which neither of the groups
could achieve without the help of the other group = INTERDEPENDENCE
- After attempting to reach the common, superordinate goals - the groups even
perceived some of the boys in the opposing group to be their best friends.
Second article - also Sherif
- How to produce group memberships in the first phase? - generate situations in which
the attainment of the goals depends on the coordinated activity of all individuals
, - How to produce friction? - generate a situation in which a group can achieve their
goals only on the expense of the opposing group
Research findings
While the friction between opposing groups was getting worse, the ingroup cooperativeness
increased. Altered intergroup relations (both positive or negative) affect the nature of the
relationship of ingroup members.
Solutions for reducing intergroup friction - what was used in Sherif’s experiment and
what not used:
1) Disseminating favorable information about outgroup members - was not used
2) Making individual achievements supreme by rewards (individuation of members) was
not used
3) Involving leaders - was not used
4) Common enemy approach - bringing groups together against a common enemy group
- was not used
5) Fostering social contact through activities that are perceived as pleasant - was used
(but were not efficient, made it even worse)
6) Subordinate goals were used (were efficient)
As friction between groups decreased, so did the glorification of ingroup members. The
ratings of ingroup members did not significantly change, but the ratings of outgroup members
did
Intergroup relations can not be understood from intragroup dynamics. Intergroup
relations are determined by functional relations between groups
Identity approach
Social identity theory (Tajfel)
Exp. 1 - Minimal Group Paradigm (Tajfel)
Participants choose which group they will be in based on which artists they liked more (Klee
of Kandinsky). Later, they allocated more resources in their own group than the other one.
(proof of minimal criteria needed for groups and group favoritism to occur)
, Why did ingroup favoritism occur? - People strive for a positive social identity. Without
further information about the value of their group, expressing ingroup favoritism was the only
way in which people could positively differentiate between their group and the other.
Tajfel - dividing the world into social groups is self relevant
Social categorization accompanied with the need for positive self image elicits social
comparison with relevant out groups. Positive self image is maintained by comparison.
Self categorization → Social comparison → Social Identity
Social identity theory - can it resolve intergroup conflict? - making a common identity
salient (psychology vs physics students = students of leiden university)
Differentiating our groups from opposing groups in a positive way can be explained by the =
need for certainty and need for self esteem = positive self image
Thus, SIT consists of = cognitive processes (social comparison, self-categorization) and
motivational factors (need for a positive self image)
Social context determines which part of a person's social identity is the most salient at a given
moment (student, daughter, psychologist..)
How do groups with a negative image attached to them cope?
1) Individual mobility - trying as an individual to seek entrance to a higher status group
2) Collective action - trying as a group to improve group status
3) Social creativity - changing the comparison group or the dimension of comparison
Which of these coping styles a person will choose depends on several factors:
1) group permeability – is moving to another group possible?
2) the legitimacy - is the distinction between the two groups and discrimination fair?
3) and stability of the status differences - can the situation change?
When the boundaries for other groups are closed - legitimacy and stability become important.
