INTERGROUP RELATIONS
Through the study of intergroup relations – how people in one group (the ‘ingroup’) think about and act towards members of another group (the ‘outgroup’) – social psychologists (e.g. Brewer & Brown, 1998; Hewstone, Rubin & Willis, 2002) seek to understand range of critical issues, including:
crowd behaviour;
cooperation and competition between groups;
social identity;
prejudice and discrimination; and
how to replace social conflict with social harmony.
DEINDIVIDUATION, COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR AND THE CROWD
Many researchers have emphasized the tendency of group members to act in unison, like a single entity. Early writers on crowd behaviour (who were not trained social psychologists) tended to view collective behaviour as irrational, aggressive, antisocial and primitive – reflecting the emergence of a ‘group mind’ in collective/crowd situations (e.g. LeBon 1896/1908). The general model is that people in interactive groups such as crowds are anonymous and distracted, which causes them to lose their sense of individuality and become deindividuated.
Deindividuation is thought to prevent people fromfollowing the prosocial norms of society that usually govern behaviour, because they are no longer identifiable (and hence no longer feel compelled to conform to social norms). It is argued that people regress to a primitive, selfish and uncivilized behavioural level. Research that has manipulated anonymity by placing people in dark rooms, or having them wear hoods and robes reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan, has generally found that deindividuation does increase aggression and antisocial behaviour (Zimbardo, 1970). On the other hand, when participants were deindividuated by wearing nursing uniforms, anonymity produced more prosocial behaviour ( Johnson & Downing, 1979).
More recent research has discarded the idea that crowds are irrational, and has concentrated instead on understanding how people in crowds develop a shared identity, a shared purpose and shared norms (Turner & Killian, 1972). In crowd situations, people often identify very strongly with the group defined by the crowd, and therefore adhere very closely to the norms of the crowd (Reicher, 2001). Crowds may only appear irrational and fickle from the outside – more often than not, their behaviour seems rational to members of the crowd, who may also identify specific other groups (e.g. the police, ethnic/racial groups) as a legitimate target for aggression.
COOPERATION AND COMPETITION BETWEEN GROUPS
Sherif (1966; Sherif et al., 1961; Sherif, White, & Harvey, 1955) provided a far-reaching and influential perspective on intergroup behaviour. In a series of naturalistic field experiments on conflict and cooperation at boys’ camps in the United States in the early 1950s, Sherif and colleagues studied group formation, intergroup competition and conflict reduction. In the group-formation phase, Sherif divided new arrivals at the camps into two groups and isolated them in separate livingquarters to allow them to develop their own internal structures and norms.
In the intergroup competition phase, Sherif then brought the two groups together for a series of zero-sum competitions (what one group won, the other group lost), such as tug-of-war. The typical finding at this stage was ‘ingroup favouritism’ – each group judged fellow ingroup members’ performance to be superior to that of outgroup members.
Of especial note, the competitiveness of the between-group interactions subsequently pervaded all aspects of intergroup behaviour, becoming so extreme and conflictual (e.g. involving negative stereotyping of, and aggression towards, the outgroup) that most of Sherif ’s studies had to be concluded at this stage. In a replication conducted in the Lebanon, the study had to be stopped because members of one group came out with knives to attack the other group (Diab, 1970).
Having found it so easy to trigger intergroup hostility, in the conflict reduction phase Sherif discovered how hard it was to reduce conflict. The most effective strategy was to introduce a series of superordinate goals, i.e. goals that both groups desired but could only attain if they acted together. For example, when the camp truck broke down delivering supplies, neither group could push-start it on their own; but both groups working together managed to move the truck by pulling on a rope attached to the front bumper. Negative stereotypes of the outgroup which resulted after a period of intergroup competition were considerably less negative after the manipulation of superordinate goals.To explain his findings, herif focused on the importance of goals. Mutually exclusive goals cause competitive intergroup behaviour, and superordinate goals improve intergroup relations. As he pointed to the real nature of goal relations determinining intergroup behaviour, Sherif ’s theory is often called realistic conflict theory.
But Sherif ’s studies also found that first expressions of ingroup favouritism occurred in the group formation phase, when the groups were isolated from one another and knew only of each other’s existence. So the mere existence of two groups seemed to trigger intergroup behaviour, before any mutually exclusive goals had been introduced.
Through the study of intergroup relations – how people in one group (the ‘ingroup’) think about and act towards members of another group (the ‘outgroup’) – social psychologists (e.g. Brewer & Brown, 1998; Hewstone, Rubin & Willis, 2002) seek to understand range of critical issues, including:
crowd behaviour;
cooperation and competition between groups;
social identity;
prejudice and discrimination; and
how to replace social conflict with social harmony.
DEINDIVIDUATION, COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR AND THE CROWD
Many researchers have emphasized the tendency of group members to act in unison, like a single entity. Early writers on crowd behaviour (who were not trained social psychologists) tended to view collective behaviour as irrational, aggressive, antisocial and primitive – reflecting the emergence of a ‘group mind’ in collective/crowd situations (e.g. LeBon 1896/1908). The general model is that people in interactive groups such as crowds are anonymous and distracted, which causes them to lose their sense of individuality and become deindividuated.
Deindividuation is thought to prevent people fromfollowing the prosocial norms of society that usually govern behaviour, because they are no longer identifiable (and hence no longer feel compelled to conform to social norms). It is argued that people regress to a primitive, selfish and uncivilized behavioural level. Research that has manipulated anonymity by placing people in dark rooms, or having them wear hoods and robes reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan, has generally found that deindividuation does increase aggression and antisocial behaviour (Zimbardo, 1970). On the other hand, when participants were deindividuated by wearing nursing uniforms, anonymity produced more prosocial behaviour ( Johnson & Downing, 1979).
More recent research has discarded the idea that crowds are irrational, and has concentrated instead on understanding how people in crowds develop a shared identity, a shared purpose and shared norms (Turner & Killian, 1972). In crowd situations, people often identify very strongly with the group defined by the crowd, and therefore adhere very closely to the norms of the crowd (Reicher, 2001). Crowds may only appear irrational and fickle from the outside – more often than not, their behaviour seems rational to members of the crowd, who may also identify specific other groups (e.g. the police, ethnic/racial groups) as a legitimate target for aggression.
COOPERATION AND COMPETITION BETWEEN GROUPS
Sherif (1966; Sherif et al., 1961; Sherif, White, & Harvey, 1955) provided a far-reaching and influential perspective on intergroup behaviour. In a series of naturalistic field experiments on conflict and cooperation at boys’ camps in the United States in the early 1950s, Sherif and colleagues studied group formation, intergroup competition and conflict reduction. In the group-formation phase, Sherif divided new arrivals at the camps into two groups and isolated them in separate livingquarters to allow them to develop their own internal structures and norms.
In the intergroup competition phase, Sherif then brought the two groups together for a series of zero-sum competitions (what one group won, the other group lost), such as tug-of-war. The typical finding at this stage was ‘ingroup favouritism’ – each group judged fellow ingroup members’ performance to be superior to that of outgroup members.
Of especial note, the competitiveness of the between-group interactions subsequently pervaded all aspects of intergroup behaviour, becoming so extreme and conflictual (e.g. involving negative stereotyping of, and aggression towards, the outgroup) that most of Sherif ’s studies had to be concluded at this stage. In a replication conducted in the Lebanon, the study had to be stopped because members of one group came out with knives to attack the other group (Diab, 1970).
Having found it so easy to trigger intergroup hostility, in the conflict reduction phase Sherif discovered how hard it was to reduce conflict. The most effective strategy was to introduce a series of superordinate goals, i.e. goals that both groups desired but could only attain if they acted together. For example, when the camp truck broke down delivering supplies, neither group could push-start it on their own; but both groups working together managed to move the truck by pulling on a rope attached to the front bumper. Negative stereotypes of the outgroup which resulted after a period of intergroup competition were considerably less negative after the manipulation of superordinate goals.To explain his findings, herif focused on the importance of goals. Mutually exclusive goals cause competitive intergroup behaviour, and superordinate goals improve intergroup relations. As he pointed to the real nature of goal relations determinining intergroup behaviour, Sherif ’s theory is often called realistic conflict theory.
But Sherif ’s studies also found that first expressions of ingroup favouritism occurred in the group formation phase, when the groups were isolated from one another and knew only of each other’s existence. So the mere existence of two groups seemed to trigger intergroup behaviour, before any mutually exclusive goals had been introduced.
No comments:
Post a Comment