Social, personality and abnormal psychology session 2:
intergroup behaviours
The role of relative deprivation and relative gratification in intergroup behaviours
Relative deprivation – J curve hypothesis – we see a difference between what we
expect to happen and what actually happen-The difference between what one
believes ‘ought to be’ and how one perceives ‘what is’. Relative deprivation is the
gap between our expectations and the perceptions of reality - (Davies, 1969) – when
attainment is drastically different to expectations
Two forms of relative deprivation: egoistic relative deprivation – when an individual
feels personally deprived relative to similar others; will feel hard done by as similar
individuals within a group have a better perception of reality. Fraternalistic
deprivation – when a group feel deprived in comparison to other groups – other
considerations of fraternalistic deprivation and social unrest: 1) person needs to
identify strongly with group 2) when action is believed to be an effective way of
bringing about change 3) procedural injustice – feeling as though you have been a
victim of unfair procedures
Relative gratification and deprivation – V curve hypothesis-Groffman and Muller
1973 – 503 respondents to an interview schedule DV: potential for political violence
IV: levels of gratification E.g perceived difference between ‘best situation’ and
situation in future – person to person variables will vary with degree of discrepancy
between what one expects to achieve in future and best outcome – jetten et al 2015
2014 referendum in Switzerland: should immigration be curbed-nationally result was
aprox. 50/50 – but regional difference. Significant correlation with yes the higher the
income the more likely they were to say yes to curbing immigration. Highest
percentage of yes votes were in regions with either relatively high (fear of not
succeeding) or low unemployment (fear of being overlooked)
Jetten et all 2: 61 UG students of Australian citizenship moved into Bimboola with 5
income groups but participants only in one group of 2-4 participants at the highest
and lowest end of the income spectrum had a greater opposition to immigration
Conflict over resources
Sherif’s Boys’ camp studies – white middle class 11-12 yr-old boys attended a two
weel summer camp, divided into two groups, eagles and rattlers (unaware of other
group) three stages: group formation (team building activities), intergroup
competition (competed in games to win points/ found they turned hostile against
one another), intergroup cooperation (pleasant activities for two days had no effect
on conflict reduction, both groups then given a ‘superordinate goals’ where both
teams would benefit resulted in a reduction in conflict and hostility and observed
cooperative and helpful interactions, intergroup friendships, sharp decrease in
unfavourable stereotypes, development of standard procedures)
Realistic group conflict theory – prejudice and discrimination arose from conflict over
real resources where one group would win over the other, prejudice arose
regardless pf personality, ingroup identification was solidified by conflict, prejudice
and discrimination were reduced by working towards shared goals.
Is competition necessary for antagonism? In some case’s yes-mere knowledge of the
other group sparked negative reactions
intergroup behaviours
The role of relative deprivation and relative gratification in intergroup behaviours
Relative deprivation – J curve hypothesis – we see a difference between what we
expect to happen and what actually happen-The difference between what one
believes ‘ought to be’ and how one perceives ‘what is’. Relative deprivation is the
gap between our expectations and the perceptions of reality - (Davies, 1969) – when
attainment is drastically different to expectations
Two forms of relative deprivation: egoistic relative deprivation – when an individual
feels personally deprived relative to similar others; will feel hard done by as similar
individuals within a group have a better perception of reality. Fraternalistic
deprivation – when a group feel deprived in comparison to other groups – other
considerations of fraternalistic deprivation and social unrest: 1) person needs to
identify strongly with group 2) when action is believed to be an effective way of
bringing about change 3) procedural injustice – feeling as though you have been a
victim of unfair procedures
Relative gratification and deprivation – V curve hypothesis-Groffman and Muller
1973 – 503 respondents to an interview schedule DV: potential for political violence
IV: levels of gratification E.g perceived difference between ‘best situation’ and
situation in future – person to person variables will vary with degree of discrepancy
between what one expects to achieve in future and best outcome – jetten et al 2015
2014 referendum in Switzerland: should immigration be curbed-nationally result was
aprox. 50/50 – but regional difference. Significant correlation with yes the higher the
income the more likely they were to say yes to curbing immigration. Highest
percentage of yes votes were in regions with either relatively high (fear of not
succeeding) or low unemployment (fear of being overlooked)
Jetten et all 2: 61 UG students of Australian citizenship moved into Bimboola with 5
income groups but participants only in one group of 2-4 participants at the highest
and lowest end of the income spectrum had a greater opposition to immigration
Conflict over resources
Sherif’s Boys’ camp studies – white middle class 11-12 yr-old boys attended a two
weel summer camp, divided into two groups, eagles and rattlers (unaware of other
group) three stages: group formation (team building activities), intergroup
competition (competed in games to win points/ found they turned hostile against
one another), intergroup cooperation (pleasant activities for two days had no effect
on conflict reduction, both groups then given a ‘superordinate goals’ where both
teams would benefit resulted in a reduction in conflict and hostility and observed
cooperative and helpful interactions, intergroup friendships, sharp decrease in
unfavourable stereotypes, development of standard procedures)
Realistic group conflict theory – prejudice and discrimination arose from conflict over
real resources where one group would win over the other, prejudice arose
regardless pf personality, ingroup identification was solidified by conflict, prejudice
and discrimination were reduced by working towards shared goals.
Is competition necessary for antagonism? In some case’s yes-mere knowledge of the
other group sparked negative reactions
