Intergroup Behavior: Social Psychology Lecture Notes, Study notes of Advanced Education

Download Intergroup Behavior: Social Psychology Lecture Notes and more Study notes Advanced Education in PDF only on Docsity!

Exam 3 - Lecture notes exam

3 updated version well

detailed

Introduction to Social Psychology

04/04 Class Notes - Intergroup Behavior

Class Notes - Audio recording started: 11:04 AM Wednesday, April 4, 2018

• Intergroup behavior --> between groups ○ Group vs group ○ Discontinuity effect --> intergroup behavior is much more competitive than inter-individual behavior  If you give some sort of task that is between two groups versus the same task between individuals, the groups will behave in a much more competitive fashion than the individuals □ Individuals may be more likely to cooperate  e.g. Prisoner's Dilemma Game (PDG) □ Given a prisoner type situation --> 2 people have committed a crime and they are both in questioning (separately) ⬥ Both can either hold their tongues or point their fingers at the other person ◊ Both may not say anything ◊ One of them could point a finger at the other, and the other does not say anything ◊ Both point fingers at the other ⬥ Acting competitively vs cooperating □ Represented by 2X2 matric - picture ⬥

from our schemas about individuals and person-to-person interactions  Schemas around intergroup behavior tend to revolve around schemas about fear and greed

 We learn at an early age that groups compete  So, when people are in groups, playing PDG, people not only want to maximize their outcome so that their groups wins the most, but they are also afraid that the other group will choice Y and that they will be the only ones getting a zero and that also causes them to choose Y so they can avoid getting zero and get something out of it  However, little kids (kindergarteners, first graders) don’t have this schema when they enter school □ Putting little kids in groups and playing a simpler version of PDG --> they cooperate just as much as the individuals  But, somewhere along the line, we learn group competition by 3rd or 4th grade  So, we development a fear schema of group competition and a schema that it is okay to be greedy when you are in a group --> increase the level of competition □ e.g. increase the number of times people choose Y in PDG  Another version of PDG which adds a third column (Z choice) □ Z choice --> if one person or groups chooses Z, bother groups A and B get two points ⬥ Regardless of what the other group chooses, if you choose Z, guaranteed to get 2 ⬥ Known as PDG alternative game --> Z choice = reflection of fearful schema ◊ Only choose Z, if you are entirely worried about the other group trying to take advantage of you and choose Y --> guaranteeing yourself to do better than a Y,Y choice ◊ The level of groups choosing Y goes down to about 25% and the other 25% of the time, they choose the Z choice ○ Social identity theory (about intergroup behavior that can applied to the discontinuity effect)  Part of our self-esteem stems from the groups we belong to and therefore when we are in a group vs group situation, we want our group to do better than the other group --> way of bolstering self esteem  Minimal group paradigm --> people will think of themselves in terms of my group vs other group even if they are randomly assigned to these groups □ Have people look at slides of modern art and then make ratings about pictures they like □ Researcher tells them (randomly assigned) you are a CLE fan or you are a Kadinsky fans ⬥ Nominal, categorical groups □ Task --> can give 100 dollars to anyone who is in the study, but they can't give money to themselves ⬥ You will give most all of the 100 dollars to the people who are in the same "fan" group as you ◊ Inclined to favor your groups even if you can’t give money to yourself ○ Diffusion of responsibility --> when we are put into a group, the responsibility for the behavior of the group is diffused across group members  As a result, you don't necessarily feel responsible for your groups competitive behavior

responsibility  If you playing PDG as an individual, you have nowhere to blame --> feel sorry for choosing Y □ Tells opponent that in the next round they will choose X and that the opponent should choose Y ⬥ They do this and then from that point on they choose X,X the whole time ○ Social support for greed(y behavior)  Only occurs within groups  When you are in that group and you are thinking about what you are going to choose, someone in the group will be like "tell them we should choose X and then choose Y, we'll get 5 points and they'll get nothing"  Only one person needs to float that idea so other people can pick up on it  Social support for that greedy behavior  Whereas if you were playing as individual there is no other person to initiate you choosing Y  Study --> one of the group members was a confederate of the experiment (subjects just thought the confederate was just another subject) □ Control --> confederate doesn't say much in the within group discussion about what they should choose (normal PDG - 50% competition) □ Condition 1 --> confederate says "we should choose X because if we both choose X, we can both get 3 and over trials it will benefit both groups" □ Condition 2 --> confederate says "we should choose Y because then we'll get 5 and they will only get 0" □ Rates of competition dramatically increased beyond 50% up to about 75% when the confederate did the greedy pitch about why the group should choose Y □ Competition fell a little bit (low 40%) when the confederate suggested the cooperative response ○ Deindividuation  If you feel like people can't identify your behavior or tie your behavior to your identity, you are deindividuated --> leads to acting in a not normal fashion □ Can be good ⬥ e.g. strangers were put into a room where no lights were on and then were told to socialized for half an hours to 45 minutes together had a fantastic time (talked more and explained more details about their lives, displayed more emotions --> being in a state of not being seen is a state of deindividuation) □ Most times is bad ⬥ e.g. social loafing ⬥ e.g. kids and the mirror at Halloween --> kids with a mask on are more likely to take more candy than they should ⬥ Study done in a city --> psychologist had a police scanner and so whenever there was a call about a person up on a ledge threatening to jump (commit suicide), social psychologists would go to that seen and code different types of variables (e.g. number of people on the street, time of day, height of the ledge they were standing on) and measured as an outcome variable whether people down on the street yelled jump ◊ Things associated with deindividuation that would

prompt someone to yell at the person on the ledge to jump ◊ Larger crowd --> more likely to yell jump --> if you are in a big crowd and yell jump, people might not know who said it ◊ Time of day --> people were more likely to yell jump when it was dark outside --> darkness is a way to hide identity ◊ The farther up they were, the less likely you could see them, so you

04/06 Class Notes - Intergroup behavior

Class Notes - Audio recording started: 11:01 AM Friday, April 6, 2018

• Reduction of intergroup Competition ○ Simple Contact Effects  Landmark supreme court decision of Brown vs BOE --> can’t have separate but equal schools □ e.g. no all black or all white schools --> evidence demonstrated that more money was being spend on white schools, etc.  One of the evidence embedded within the research for desegregation was that simple contact would decrease racial animosity between groups  All you needed was to get white and black students to be in the same room (classroom), environment etc. and that would be enough to reduce racial disparities  So simple contact is a good way to get rid of some of the intergroup competitive behavior that was found between races  Subsequent research after desegregation found that simple contact was not a good strategy □ Getting people together and forcing them to interact at some level didn't reduce ingroup-outgroup bias and didn't diminish intergroup competition or discontinuity effect ○ Robber's Cave Study  Went to a summer camp to do research about intergroup behavior -- > wanted to find ways to make intergroup competition and then find ways to try to reduce the competition  Recruited 10 year old boys in a homogenous sample (homogenous means that they were very similar to eachother- e.g. they were all white, of a certain class, and from towns of a certain size, same grade) □ Came to camp and essentially were separated into two different groups ⬥ The biggest thing that led to ingroup-outgroup bias was that they got to name their group (label themselves) □ Group 1 = 1 rattlers □ Group 2 = 2 eagles □ By labeling themselves they are giving a label to group membership --> causes them to think differently about their group vs the other group --> social identity □ Activities had trophies for the winning team □ Within a few days --> dramatic increase in competition ⬥ e.g. skirmishes, segregated themselves in lunch rooms, food fights ⬥ Easy to get them to compete  Wanted to reduce competition □ Tried simple contact --> forced them to have to interact during

certain types of activities like going around the room and saying what their favorite song is ⬥ Barred them from saying that they were part of one team or the other ⬥ Did not really work

◊ Grade is dependent on both you individually and other group members  Did the study in real schools comparing the traditional classroom setting to the jigsaw classroom setting □ Jigsaw classroom kids performed better scholastically and tended to reduce ingroup-outgroup bias and stereotypes

○ Positive Intergroup Example  Study on undergrads who were trying to get research credit  The study was going to take place as 6 hours on a task --> wanted to see if they could create competition between groups  There's like 40 people and you're randomly assigned to one group or the other □ Each group is given a tshirt to wear of a different color - green group and red group □ Do activities where my group could win or my group could lose ⬥ Made intergroup competition by doing activities that were similar to Robert's Cave ⬥ But instead of doing superordinate goals, they took one member from each group and made them do a task together ◊ Task was an intimacy (getting to know you) task and also a problem solving task in which both of them would have to contribute ◊ If the two people have a successful, positive interaction as an example and saying that the other person is nice, etc. would affect group thoughts on eachother  Demonstrated with sports team too --> leaders of sports team having a positive interaction with eachother can reduce amount of conflict between the groups ○ Last 3 are relatively successful strategies  Superordinate goals  Jigsaw classroom - interdependence  Positive intergroup example  Reduces ingroup-outgroup bias and reduces competition in which the groups engage in ○ Simple contact is not an effective strategy  They need to work together and be dependent on eachother to solve something for a successful reduction of tension

□ e.g. if you get sweaty palms, increase in heart rate, etc. --> label as attraction ⬥ Many studies that tried to make use of the misattribution of arousal as attraction

□ Bridge study ⬥ Researchers were looking at the misattribution of arousal as attraction --> study outside of a park in Vancouver, British Columbia ⬥ Deep drop off into a gorge --> Indiana jones bridge (rickety, boards are moving) ⬥ Gorge that was not so deep --> modern concrete, stable bridge ⬥ Study --> used a female researcher and dressed her up in a park ranger uniform and place her in the middle of each bridge and then there she would stop men who were crossing the bridge and ask them innocuous questions about how the men found the facilities and the bridge (simple, not anything questions), the men then go and finish across the bridge and another park ranger stops then and says, "oh the other girl is a trainee and I wanted to get some feedback on how she was doing in terms of interacting with people in the park" - measuring the dependent variable. Questions asked were about how now the "trainee" was and if they enjoyed interacting with the "trainee" and then ask some attraction based questions and ultimately offer her phone number and see if the men will take her phone number and if they called the phone number. ◊ Guys going across the rickety bridge reported that they liked the trainee more and finding her more attractive, were more likely to take her phone number and were more likely to actually call her number as well ◊ The guy going across the sturdy bridge are much less likely to find the trainee attractive and take the number or call the number ◊ *there might personality errors between guys who went across the rickety bridge and guys who went on the more study bridge --> follow up with studies in a lab ⬥ People were randomly assigned two conditions

• Condition 1 --> they are told that they will be in the condition of getting an intense shock
• Condition 2 --> they are told that they will be in the condition of not getting a shock
• Then they wait 10 minutes before the "conditions" occur and a female or opposite sex research assistant who comes in to ask some questions about innocuous things. And then another researcher came to measure how much they found the assistant attractive ◊ When the research assistant is talking to you, you are feeling an increased heartrate and a rush of adrenaline, etc. and you misattribute those feelings as interpersonal attraction because we are so used to using those physiological arousals as a cue in real life for attraction □ Lingerie slides --> male subjects signed up and told they are doing a study on perception, the researcher was interested in

◊ You go away and a week later you are asked to come back in because they "forgot" to take your ratings of the slides, so you are presented with the same 10 slides and the one you were randomly assigned to hear your heart beating faster, you rate as the one you find the most attractive ⬥ We are used to having the physiological arousal as a cue so when the feedback (when it's not even real) is attributed to attraction towards the person □ Study abroad student was interested in a girl, but she wasn't really into him, so he was planning on using the misattribution of arousal to get her to be attracted to him ⬥ Rome is famous for taxi driving that is really rough ⬥ So he thought that he would take the girl on a taxi ride where she will most likely be aroused and then see him and will misattribute the arousal to attraction ⬥ It worked but she wound up dating the cab driver □ "secrets" ⬥ When we have some sort of relationship with somebody that is being kept a secret ◊ Physiological arousal --> it is exciting to have to keep something from other people --> might inflate the amount of attraction that might occur when you are keeping the relationship a secret ⬥ Lab study --> subjects come in a group of 4 (two men and two women) ◊ He had them do an ESP task (extra sensory perception task) ⬥ One of them would hold up a card with like a shape on it and the other person would have to think really hard about the shape and guess what the shape was ⬥ 3 conditions

• Control --> both people are sitting across just doing the task
• Experimental 1 --> everyone knows you are touching your feet under the table
• Experimental 2 --> you had to touch your feet under the table and not let the other people know that you were touching your feet  Keeping a secret ⬥ Measured sociometric attraction to the other people in the study --> when you were having to touch your feet in a secretive manner, then you found the person you were doing the task with much more attractive than anyone else ⬥ Secrets tend to create this situation where you have to keep thinking about a person without telling other people ◊ Keeps the person on your mind in an excited state since you always can’t tell anybody --> tends to increase attraction by physiological arousal conditioning ○ Learning theory approaches  Rewards/punishments (operant conditioning) --> we tend to like people who provide more rewards for us and incur fewer costs (if it's

rewarding to be around someone, we are more likely to like them - friends and romantic) □ Gain-loss hypothesis ⬥ The effect of winning somebody over (gaining their esteem) tends to lead to greater attraction ◊ e.g. Susie likes me at a 1-10 scale at a 7 and Jane likes me at a 3