BUILDING SOCIAL HARMONY
Prejudice and conflict are significant social ills that produce enormous human suffering, ranging from damaged self-esteem, reduced opportunities, stigma and socio-economic disadvantage, all the way to intergroup violence, war and genocide (Crocker, Major & Steele, 1998; Hewstone & Cairns, 2001).
Prejudice can be attacked by public service propaganda and educational campaigns, which convey societal disapproval of prejudice and may overcome some of the anxiety and fear that fuel it. But the problem with these strategies is that the very people being targeted may choose not to attend to the new information. Two prominent social-psychological approaches to building social harmony avoid this problem by promoting increased positive intergroup contact and changing the nature of social categorization (Hewstone, 1996).
Intergroup contact
There is now extensive evidence for the contact hypothesis, which states that contact between members of different groups, under appropriate conditions, can improve intergroup relations (G.W. Allport, 1954; see Pettigrew, 1998, for a recent review). Favourable conditions include cooperativecontact between equal-status members of the two groups in a situation that allows them to get to know each other on more than a superficial basis, and with the support of relevant social groups and authorities.
Contact appears to work best by reducing ‘intergroup anxiety’ about meeting members of the other group (Voci & Hewstone, 2003) and by promoting positive intergroup orientations, such as empathy and perspective taking (Batson et al., 1997). One difficulty is that, even if they do come to view some individuals from the other group more positively, participants in such studies do not necessarily generalize their positive perceptions beyond the specific contact situation or contact partners with whom they have engaged, to the group as a whole (Hewstone & Brown, 1986).
Recent work supports the idea that clear group affiliations should be maintained in contact situations, and that participating members should be seen as being (at least to some extent) typical of their groups (Brown & Hewstone, in press). Only under these circumstances does it appear that cooperative contact is likely to lead to more positive ratings of the outgroup as a whole. A further limitation is that optimal intergroup contact may be hard to bring about on a large scale. Wright and colleagues therefore proposed an ‘extended contact effect’, in which knowledge that a fellow ingroup member has a close relationship with an outgroup member is used as a catalyst to promote more positive intergroup attitudes (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe & Ropp, 1997). This extended contact is therefore second-hand, rather than involving the participants in direct intergroup contact themselves, and so could potentially bring about widespread reductions in prejudice without everyone having to develop outgroup friendships (which anyway may be impracticable, depending on the nature of the groups).
Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns and Voci (2004) have recently shown that, by reducing intergroup anxiety, both direct and extended forms of contact contribute towards more positive views of the outgroup among Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.
Prejudice and conflict are significant social ills that produce enormous human suffering, ranging from damaged self-esteem, reduced opportunities, stigma and socio-economic disadvantage, all the way to intergroup violence, war and genocide (Crocker, Major & Steele, 1998; Hewstone & Cairns, 2001).
Prejudice can be attacked by public service propaganda and educational campaigns, which convey societal disapproval of prejudice and may overcome some of the anxiety and fear that fuel it. But the problem with these strategies is that the very people being targeted may choose not to attend to the new information. Two prominent social-psychological approaches to building social harmony avoid this problem by promoting increased positive intergroup contact and changing the nature of social categorization (Hewstone, 1996).
Intergroup contact
There is now extensive evidence for the contact hypothesis, which states that contact between members of different groups, under appropriate conditions, can improve intergroup relations (G.W. Allport, 1954; see Pettigrew, 1998, for a recent review). Favourable conditions include cooperativecontact between equal-status members of the two groups in a situation that allows them to get to know each other on more than a superficial basis, and with the support of relevant social groups and authorities.
Contact appears to work best by reducing ‘intergroup anxiety’ about meeting members of the other group (Voci & Hewstone, 2003) and by promoting positive intergroup orientations, such as empathy and perspective taking (Batson et al., 1997). One difficulty is that, even if they do come to view some individuals from the other group more positively, participants in such studies do not necessarily generalize their positive perceptions beyond the specific contact situation or contact partners with whom they have engaged, to the group as a whole (Hewstone & Brown, 1986).
Recent work supports the idea that clear group affiliations should be maintained in contact situations, and that participating members should be seen as being (at least to some extent) typical of their groups (Brown & Hewstone, in press). Only under these circumstances does it appear that cooperative contact is likely to lead to more positive ratings of the outgroup as a whole. A further limitation is that optimal intergroup contact may be hard to bring about on a large scale. Wright and colleagues therefore proposed an ‘extended contact effect’, in which knowledge that a fellow ingroup member has a close relationship with an outgroup member is used as a catalyst to promote more positive intergroup attitudes (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe & Ropp, 1997). This extended contact is therefore second-hand, rather than involving the participants in direct intergroup contact themselves, and so could potentially bring about widespread reductions in prejudice without everyone having to develop outgroup friendships (which anyway may be impracticable, depending on the nature of the groups).
Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns and Voci (2004) have recently shown that, by reducing intergroup anxiety, both direct and extended forms of contact contribute towards more positive views of the outgroup among Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.
Decategorization and recategorization
Prejudice depends on ingroup–outgroup categorizations. So if the categorization disappears, then so should the prejudice. Is this the case, and are these kinds of interventions practical? There are various ways in which dissolution of categories might occur, two of the most prominent being:
Prejudice depends on ingroup–outgroup categorizations. So if the categorization disappears, then so should the prejudice. Is this the case, and are these kinds of interventions practical? There are various ways in which dissolution of categories might occur, two of the most prominent being:
1. decategorization, where people from different groups come to view each other as individuals (Brewer & Miller, 1984); and
2. recategorization, where people from different subgroups, such as Scots and English, come to view each other as members of a single superordinate group, such as British (see Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman & Rust, 1993).
Decategorization can be difficult to achieve when groups are very obviously different (e.g. Muslim girls and women who wear headscarves, compared with non-Muslims who typically do not), and where feelings run high it can be almost impossible toexample is the Barbarians invitation rugby team, which regularly plays matches against visiting international teams to the UK. They all wear the same famous blue-and-white hooped shirts, but they each wear the socks of their club team. So subgroup (club) identities are effectively viewed as complementary and valued roles within a larger, superordinate identity – the Barbarians. Prevent intergroup categorizations from coming to the fore. Recategorization may be more attainable, but it can still be difficult to get people from opposing groups with a history of antipathy and conflict to regard themselves as members of one superordinate group. (This is part of the problem in Northern Ireland, for example.) Recategorization can also pose a threat to social identity at the subgroup level, because people do not want to abandon their cherished subgroup identities for more general (and less distinctive) superordinate identities.
A more successful strategy may be a combination of a superordinate identity and distinctive subgroup identities, so that each group preserves its distinctive subgroup identity within a common, superordinate identity (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). A nice Clearly, At the societal level this notion relates to the social policy of multiculturalism or cultural pluralism, in which group differences are recognized and nurtured within a common superordinate identity that stresses cooperative interdependence and diversity. This notion has been especially cultivated in some societies and countries, especially ‘immigrant countries’ such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
Decategorization can be difficult to achieve when groups are very obviously different (e.g. Muslim girls and women who wear headscarves, compared with non-Muslims who typically do not), and where feelings run high it can be almost impossible toexample is the Barbarians invitation rugby team, which regularly plays matches against visiting international teams to the UK. They all wear the same famous blue-and-white hooped shirts, but they each wear the socks of their club team. So subgroup (club) identities are effectively viewed as complementary and valued roles within a larger, superordinate identity – the Barbarians. Prevent intergroup categorizations from coming to the fore. Recategorization may be more attainable, but it can still be difficult to get people from opposing groups with a history of antipathy and conflict to regard themselves as members of one superordinate group. (This is part of the problem in Northern Ireland, for example.) Recategorization can also pose a threat to social identity at the subgroup level, because people do not want to abandon their cherished subgroup identities for more general (and less distinctive) superordinate identities.
A more successful strategy may be a combination of a superordinate identity and distinctive subgroup identities, so that each group preserves its distinctive subgroup identity within a common, superordinate identity (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). A nice Clearly, At the societal level this notion relates to the social policy of multiculturalism or cultural pluralism, in which group differences are recognized and nurtured within a common superordinate identity that stresses cooperative interdependence and diversity. This notion has been especially cultivated in some societies and countries, especially ‘immigrant countries’ such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
QUESTIONS
1. Why does the presence of other people tend to improve performance on easy, well-learned tasks, but worsen it on difficult, poorly learned tasks?
2. What processes explain bystander apathy in the presence of other people?
3. What are some of the main types of coordination losses and motivation losses in group performance, and how could they be overcome?
4. Discuss the role of norms within groups, and explain how they develop and change.
5. Are competitive goals necessary or sufficient conditions for creating intergroup conflict?
6. What kinds of intergroup contact can promote prejudice reduction, and how?
1. Why does the presence of other people tend to improve performance on easy, well-learned tasks, but worsen it on difficult, poorly learned tasks?
2. What processes explain bystander apathy in the presence of other people?
3. What are some of the main types of coordination losses and motivation losses in group performance, and how could they be overcome?
4. Discuss the role of norms within groups, and explain how they develop and change.
5. Are competitive goals necessary or sufficient conditions for creating intergroup conflict?
6. What kinds of intergroup contact can promote prejudice reduction, and how?
No comments:
Post a Comment