Intergroup Relations
Objectives
 Distinguish between stereotypes,
prejudice, discrimination, and
ethnocentrism.
 Understand the internal (within person)
and external (situational) variables that
lead to stereotypes, prejudice,
discrimination, and ethnocentrism.
Prejudicial Attitudes
 Prejudice
 Learned
negative attitude
 Stereotype
 Cognitive
component (thoughts)
 Discrimination
 Behavioral
component (actions)
 Ethnocentrism
 Judging
other culture’s practices as
inferior to one’s own
One Story
 http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/chima
manda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_singl
e_story.html
Why is there prejudice?
 Group dynamics
 In-groups vs. out-groups
 Interdependent vs. Independent response
 Learned responses
 Mental shortcuts / categorization
 Selective attention (priorities)
 Out-group homogeneity (they’re all the
same)
Why is there prejudice?
 Competition
 Displaced aggression
 Downward social comparison
 Scapegoating
Objectives
 Describe how the processes of
categorization, memory, selective
attention, and attributional bias affect
the development and maintenance of
ethnocentric attitudes and stereotypes.
Stereotypes
 Attributional bias
 Situational cause (outside the person)
 Dispositional cause (inside the person)
 Saliency (what you notice quickly)
 Selective attention
 Memory
Why might the following happen?
 A student reads a pro-Castro essay in
your class
 Your report card shows all A’s for the
semester
 A child hits another child on the
playground 2 days in a row
 You speed on your way to work
Attributional Biases
 Fundamental Attribution Error

Tendency to overestimate the extent to which people’s behavior is due to
their disposition and not the situation
 Correspondence Bias

Tendency to infer that people’s behavior matches their personality
 Just World Hypothesis

Bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to good people
 Self-Serving Attributions

Crediting one’s own success with internal/dispositional factors but
explaining failures with external factors
“There he goes again...Satan’s pet.”
I know you miss the Wainwrights, Bobby, but they
were weak and stupid people—and that’s why we
have wolves and other large predators.
“Well, no, I can’t tell Harriet!...First thing
she’s gonna ask me is what I was doin’
checkin’ out a decoy!”
Empathy, Trust, Punishment
 Empathy
 How do you feel towards someone
who “cheats” you?
Physical Pain
Females
Males
Pain = anterior insula/fronto-insular cortex (AI/FI) & anterior cingulate cortex (ACC)
Reward Processing
Nucleus Accumbens
Punishment is Rewarding
Objectives
 Describe the contributions of basic
psychological processes to intergroup
relations.
 Group
identity formation
 Behavior in group
 Competition
 Cooperation
Group Identities
 Discussion: why do humans form
groups?
 Belonging,
comfort, support (information,
practical, emotional), resources/abilities,
protection, custom, “wolf pack”, back up, play a
role, unity, goals, power, companionship
Group Identities
 Collective identity
 Symbolic representation of ‘commonness’ among
a group of people, in contrast to other collectives
 Often defined under threat from another group
 Includes shared history, origin, boundaries
 Identity formation – Sherif camp
experiment
Group Identities
 In-group vs. outgroup judgments:
self-esteem, self definition (Tajfel)
 Entity model of ingroup identity:
shared identity
 Network model of ingroup identity:
relationship connection
Competition vs. Cooperation
 Zero sum games: my gain is your loss
 Non-zero sum games: both can win
 Negotiation strategies
 Adversarial (my side) vs. compromise (offer
solutions to satisfy the other)
 Social Loafing: let team do your work
 Social Striving: do more for the team
Objectives
 Describe the cultural differences in
approaches to negotiations
 Describe the common causes of
intergroup conflict
 Identify the variables likely to escalate a
conflict
 Identify the variables likely to resolve a
conflict
Negotiations
 contract vs. relationship goal
 win-win vs. win-lose negotiation attitudes
 formal vs. informal styles
 indirect vs. direct communication
 approaches to time
 general vs. specific agreement
 building a deal bottom-up vs. top-down
 decision-makers
 risk-taker vs. risk-aversive
Causes of Intergroup Conflict
 Activity
 Discussion: Under what conditions is
conflict likely to begin or escalate
between groups?
Lens Model of Conflict & Attribution
 Each person has a lens or filter
through which they look at the
conflict (Hockner)
 Your
communication acts
 What you think you are communicating
 Other’s communication acts
 What they think they are communicating
 What you think they are communicating
 What they think you are communicating
 Meaning of the relationship
Why is there Intergroup Conflict?
 Competition, discordant goals


Dr. Jones: studying a disease contracted by pregnant women that causes serious
brain, eye, and ear damage to unborn children unless the pregnant mothers are
inoculated early in their pregnancies. The Ugli Orange can be made into a
synthetic chemical serum by Dr. Jones’ company to prevent disease spread.
Dr. Roland: there’s a recent leak of nerve gas from old chemical warfare bombs
stored in bomb chambers on a small Pacific island. Thousands of people will die or
suffer serious brain damage if the gas gets out of the bomb chambers and spreads
to the coast. The Ugli Orange can be made into a synthetic chemical gas to
neutralize the nerve gas.
 Zero-sum game approaches
 Focusing
on position (need all oranges),
ignoring interests (need juice vs. rind)
 In-group/out-group distinctions
Why is there Intergroup Conflict?
 Attributions
 Misunderstanding perspectives
 Prejudice, ethnocentrism, lack of trust
Resolutions
 Solutions from the 3rd side
 3:07-6:49, 15:40-17:58
http://www.ted.com/talks/william_ury.ht
ml
 Perspective
 Common identity & goals
 Mathematics: structure of the
insurgents :49-6:01
 http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_gourley_
on_the_mathematics_of_war.html
Conflict Escalation
 Splitting
 Loss
of power of surrogate leader
 Economic or military disaster
 War
 Group to blame
 Emotions,
justification of strong measures
 Motivated group
Hate Groups
 Discussion: What kinds of groups are
common in the United States? What
kinds of groups are more likely to
create in-group favoritism or friction
with out-groups?
Roles in a War
 Situation likely to start a war
Difficult life conditions
 Lack of personal control in changing situation
 Group conflict + devaluation of outgroup
 Perpetrators
 Respect for authority, monolithic cultural view,
harming leads to more harming
 Bystanders
 Cognitive dissonance, just world hypothesis
 Heroic Helpers
 Separate from group, personal relationship with
outgroup, prosocial orientation
