PS2030 Lecture notes 5 PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture 5: Reducing Prejudice and Intergroup Conflict Lecture Outline The ‘contact hypothesis’ – classic examples form Sherif and research in school on de-segregation Critiques of the contact hypothesis Dual identity and common ingroup identity/recategorization approaches Meta-analyses The contact H...

Description

Lecture 5: Reducing Prejudice and Intergroup Conflict Lecture Outline - The ‘contact hypothesis’ – classic examples form Sherif and research in school on de-segregation - Critiques of the contact hypothesis - Dual identity and common ingroup identity/recategorization approaches - Meta-analyses The contact Hypothesis Sherif et al.’s (1961) ‘Robber’s Cave’ study - ‘Sheer contact’ o One of the first things they tried to do was force the two groups to stay together. o In the summer camp studies the two groups had divided fully and would not mix ever. Thus, Sharif and associates forced the kids to eat meals together à but very quickly saw that did not work as conflict arose - Superordinate goals – e.g. Work together to fix the water cart, pull the buss using the old tug-of-war rope o These goals would override the previous goals o From the examples like fixing the water cart or the bus, all the kids had to work together and let go of prejudice o They had created a sex of problems that affected everyone, and they turned what was negative interdependence between the groups into what is called positive interdependence o The success of one group was the success of the other • This theory was based on the Realistic Conflict theory and turning interdependence from negative to positive - After these goals were put in place, attitudinal tests showed that in-group identity had not been removed but volatile conflict had been diffused by changing the goals relationships

-

-

Other Examples of ‘sheer contact’ as a strategy European work on foreign exchange students o Stroebe et al. (1988) – host stereotypes held by foreign students studying abroad become more negative o Furnham and Bochner (1986) – exchange students tend not to integrate. Studies of school desegregation in the U.S.A Brewer and Miller (1984) – ‘re-segregation’ Schofield (1970;1986) – lack of ‘acquaintance potential’; ‘banding’ leads to resegregation Stephan (!978) – meta-analysis – no studies showed an increase in black selfesteem after de-segregation and 25% showed a decrease Aronson (1988) – minority students feel threatened in de-segregated environment o May rebel against ‘white’ norms and values in education and develop counter-norms and values

Rupert Brown’s (1995) criticisms of de-segregation research Kids often bussed back to their own separate ethnic communities at the end of the day o Communities were still segregated, so the de-segregation was only temporary - Too much emphasis on short-term effects - A ‘no differences’ approach is stressed too much - Idea contact conditions are rarely met -

Other examples of contact research [contact in this case, as well as above, is situations in which people from different groups come together] - Northern Ireland o Trew (1986) Intergroup attitudes are no more positive in mixed schools. o Cairns (2003) – Contact hypothesis never been properly tested in N.I. - Israel o Ben-Ari & Amir (1986) - Arab & Jewish Israelis:§ (1) Unpleasant contact can make things worse § (2) Organisers often the most keen § (3) High expectations can be hard to meet § (4) Too many one-off contact attempts § (5) Too little preparation § (6) Language barriers This shows how contact; bringing people together from different backgrounds is not a no risk strategy. - If it is not planned carefully, it may be worse than in the beginning. Allport’s (1954) à The Contact Hypothesis In the 1950s he wrote a book in which he describde what might be the ideal conditions in a contact setting that could assist in ensuring that contacts have a positive outcome. 1. Equal Status a. He argued that ideally, in a contact setting people should have equal status to ensure no discrepancy based on power occurs 2. Common Goals a. He argued that ideally they would share a set of common goals so that they would be working together rather than against each other 3. Social & Institutional support a. This should happen in a context that should be supporting Above is what has now become known as the contact hypothesis. Although these do seem straight forward there is a series of issues with this idea. For example, different cultures may not have similar status hierarchies, or many not necessarily share the same goals and thus would create conflict.

One technique that tries to take some of those conflicting ideas and apply them in an educational setting is known as the ‘Jigsaw Classroom Approach’ Aronson et al.’s ‘Jigsaw Classroom’ (1978) He argued that school is a good setting the try and fix these discrepancies as children’s attitudes and prejudices are still somewhat malleable and changeable o School is competitive § He stated that there was an immediate problem in the environment as it is competitive. The children are graded and tested and thus comparison will naturally appear o He believed that to change the way people think, a change in behaviour is first needed. § To do so the use cognitive dissonance can be helpful Cognitive dissonance caused by incompatible attitudes BEFORE

AFTER

o This idea is based on Allport’s model of contact § It involved children work in groups on projects o One of the key questions asked by researchers is if this model enhances selfesteem and empathy? Evaluating the Jigsaw Classroom (Aronson et al., 1978) - Argyle (1992) - the effects are often small, and the whole thing can go badly wrong (esp. when shared goals are not achieved) - Miller & Davidson-Podgorny (1987) - meta analysis - co-operative learning can work if no intergroup competition - Devries et al (1979)- is there generalisation of effects from JSC?

Cook (1978, 1984): a re-formulation based on similarity-attraction theories - He argues that society cannot be changed in a short period of time and thus the idea that equal status between people who are in a contact setting can happen isn’t very realistic. - More realistically, we can have an equal status within the situation, even if we then accept that within the wider society there is still inequality. - He also continued by stating that if we have people meet someone who confirms the stereotype is not good, it will not help removing the prejudice o So we need out-groupers to disconfirm the stereotypes. - He also argues that acquaintances should be made ‘as individuals à this has come to be known as the de-categorization approach De-categorization à the idea is that we are looking for a switch in the brain where we turn off seeing the world in terms of categories and we encourage you to see people as unique individuals. According to Cook as well as Miller and Brewer this is the key to unlocking prejudice reduction.

Hewstone & Brown (1986): criticisms of contact research - Over-estimation of role of ignorance - Direction of causality hard to ascertain - Interpersonal or intergroup contact ideal? - Generalisation of positive attitudes (e.g. Minard, 1952)? Hewstone & Brown (1986): their suggestions - Intergroup contact during which relevant social identities remain salient - Promote distinct but complementary roles - e.g. Deschamps & Brown (1983) - See positively evaluated outgroup members as typical (Wilder, 1984) to prevent ‘sub- typing’ - See outgroup as varied (Hamburger, 1994) - A ‘dual identity’ approach o Maintain original identities but work towards superordinate goals (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000)

Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) - Meta-analysis of over 600 studies - Conclude there IS evidence for prejudice reduction following contact - Evidence strongest from experiments o 96% of studies reviewed showed reduction of prejudice o Generalisation DOES happen - Contact situations designed around Allport’s optimal conditions are most effective, but they are not essential - Possibly explained by familiarity breeding liking (Zajonc, 1968) - Uncertainty reduction important - Reduce intergroup anxiety - Group salience is still advisable - Need more longitudinal studies - Need multi-level models outlining inhibitors and facilitators of positive contact - Start early, with children The RECATEGORISATION approach à Gaertner et al., 1989; 1990 Also known as ‘common ingroup identity’ model - Lower salience of old social identities - Encourage perception of higher-level identities/categories - Turner (1981) - superordinate categories/identities - e.g. aided by common perception of an enemy Augmenting the effects of contact - Cross-cutting ties (e.g. Deschamps, 1982) - ‘Status compensation’ and positive discrimination (e.g. Norvell & Worchell, 1981) - Reducing (intergroup) anxiety - Wilder & Shapiro (1989); Islam & Hewstone (1993) - Extended (Wright et al, 1997), imagined (Crisp & Turner, 2009) and para-social (Ortiz & Harwood, 2007) contact Extended contact: the media - Jaspal & Cinnirella (2010) – media position Muslims as the ‘other’ - Muslim religiosity nearly always only mentioned in ‘bad news’ items - Lack of positive Muslim role models in mass media Pettigrew (1998) Integrating three key theories into a isngle stage-based model:...