Intergroup Relations
Theory and Research: An
overview
CULTURE AND COOPERATION
Cooperation: people’s ability to work together
toward common goals
 Psychologically, human trust and cooperation are
based on unique human cognitive abilities (e.g.
empathy and concern for others).


Cultural differences in cooperation

Decisions about cooperation are usually based
on specific situational constraints that we
encounter, but cultural perspective will
invariably apply as well.





We are certainly more willing to cooperate with
friends and family than with total strangers.
But to get a better understanding of the
psychology of cooperation we must go beyond
mere common sense.
What are the relevant theories?
What does the research show?
How powerful is the role of culture?
CULTURE AND INTERGROUP
RELATIONS
Ingroups and Outgroups

A good starting point is group formation itself.

Individuals in all cultures make distinctions among the
individuals with whom they interact based on group
memberships.

One type of meaningful social relationship that people
of all societies make are ingroups and outgroups

Ingroups:
Characterized by history of shared experiences and
anticipated future interaction.
 Our ingroups gives a us a sense of intimacy,
familiarity, trust and personal security.
Ingroups and Outgroups
 All cultures make ingroup-outgroup
differentiation, which leads to psychological
consequences.
 People expect greater similarities between
themselves and ingroup and attribute more
uniquely human emotions.
 Cultures ascribe different meanings to ingroup
and outgroup relationships.
Ingroups and Outgroups
Structure and Formation of Ingroup/Outgroup
Relationships

Cultures differ in formation and structure of
self-ingroup and self-outgroup relationships

In North American culture, ingroup and
outgroup membership is stable, where not true
for other cultures (e.g. Zimbabwe)
Ingroups and Outgroups
The meaning of Ingroup/Outgroup Relationships
 In Individualistic
cultures, people
 Have more ingroups
 Are not attached to any
single group
 Survival of individual and
society more dependent
on individual interests
 Make less distinctions
between in- and
outgroups
 In Collectivistic cultures,
people
 Have fewer ingroups
 Are very attached to the
ingroups to which they
belong
 Survival of individual and
society more dependent
on group interests
 Make large distinctions
between in- and
outgroups
Ingroups and Outgroups
The meaning of Ingroup/Outgroup Relationships

Differences in meaning of ingroup relationships have
consequences for behavior

Self-outgroup relationships also differ
My Own Research: Cross-Cultural Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations

Research Questions

What are the conditions which force groups to
Cooperate with one another?

What are the conditions which force groups to
compete with on another?




Classic work by Sherif and his associates attributed
intergroup competition to negatively interdependent
goals, i.e., competition for a valued but limited resource.
What does this mean?
A valued resource can be obtained by one group only at
the expense of another group.
This causes conflict between groups

On the flip side you have positive
interdependence in which case a valued but
limited resource can be obtained only by
working together (cooperating) with one or more
groups.
 This decreases intergroup conflict.
 From this perspective, group self interest is the
primary motivator in group relations

The lingering question is :
 Can there be intergroup cooperation or
competition when there is no valued but limited
resource at stake?
 This question was answered by the work of
Tajfel and his students by proposing and
empirically supporting Social Identity Theory
(SIT)..

According to SIT, any social categorization
which creates identifiable, distinct social groups
is enough to evoke in-group bias (favoring one’s
own group).
 Tajfel and associates used the so called minimal
group paradigm to support SIT.
 Competition in the absence of a tangible
resource or goal in called social competition.

To summarize, according to SIT, mere
awareness of membership in a distinct social
category is sufficient to evoke in-group bias.
 These spontaneously generated biases in
attitudes and behavior stem from our inherent
tendency to achieve positively valued
distinctiveness favoring our own group.


My own research pushed to envelope by employing
naturally occurring groups within a classic experimental
paradigm.
We selected two ethnic groups which varied significantly
in status disparity. One group, Anglos (mainstream
Americans), enjoyed Majority Status, whereas the other
group, Hispanics, represented a Minority Status social
group.

The other variable of interest was numeric
representation within an intergroup context.
 In our first study, we used a four person group
set-up and either pitted one Angle against three
Hispanics (Hispanic Majority) or one Hispanic
against three Anglos (Anglo Majority)
Physical Set-Up

Subjects were seated around a table with partitions to
prevent verbal interaction.
 Each subject compartment contained a controller-like
device with a small led screen and two keys, one marked
“individual”, the other “group”.
 The LED screen displayed a number from 1 to 3,
representing how many of the other subjects responded
“group” after each trial.
Pay Off Matrix



Placed in from of each subject was a pay-off
matrix with numbers representing points they
would earn for choosing “individual” or “group”
The pay-off varied as a function of how many of
the subject picked “group”
The pay-off increased for every one with the
number of subjects choosing “group”.
A subject responding “individual” earned more
points than the other subjects for a given trial
but, in the long run, would end up with less total
points than if he or she had chosen “group”.
 Hence, the individual response strategy
maximized the point difference between a
subjects and the others BUT resulted in less
total points.


The group response resulted in more overall points for
the subjects as well as for others. – Greater Absolute
Gains.
 Hence, one strategy would result in less total points for
you But even less for the others.
 The other strategy would increase your overall points
BUT also the point totals for the others.

Of course, the feedback given after each trail
regarding the number of Subject choosing
“group” was manipulated to create a
“competitive” or “cooperative” intergroup context.

What did we find?
A Follow-UP Study

Questions left unanswered
 Because the numeric minority condition had
had only one subject, we could not conclude if
the findings had to do with the “solo” effect (me
versus them) as opposed to true intergroup
relations effect (us versus them).

Also, in the initial study the feedback
(cooperative vs. competitive) was a within
subjects manipulation.
 This meant that subjects were exposed to both
conditions.
 Even with half getting “cooperative” first and half
“competitive” first, we could not rule out carry
over effects.

To answered these questions, in the follow-up
study, we extended the number of subjects in
each group from four to six and place subjects in
all possible in-group vs. out-group numeric
ratios, ranging from 1 out of 6 to 6 out of six for
both Anglo and Hispanic subjects.
 What did we find?