Studies summaries

cooperation and competition

For the individual:
  • Theories:
    • SIT – in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination
    • Kin selection- will behave altruistically to help max. survival chance of their genes.
    • Empathy-altruism model- genuine empathetic concern for others.
    • Reciprocal altruism – help another for a favour(I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine)
  • Factors:
    • Nature of situation
    • Greed
    • Behaviours of other and expectation from others-  Keer(1983)
      • sucker effect – when people believe they are doing more than their fair share. 
      • Free-riding effect – doing working as hard when someone else is working hard
For the group:
  • Bio: De Dreu et al (2012) – increase in oxytocin increases cooperation with in- group and incrases competition with out-group
  • Realistic conflict theory(RCT)
    • Opposing goals
      • Explains in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination
      • To make cooperation need to have superordinate goals – can only be completed when done together between groups.
    • Compete over resources
    • Sherif et al(1961) - *can be used for all major topics in Group dynamics
      • Competition over scare resources and opposing goals induced conflict and discrimination
      • Superordinate goal reduces conflict
      • BUT Tyerman and Spencer(1983)- cross cultural replication with UK sample showed different results; could not induce conflict
    • Savelkoul et al(2011) – supports both RCT and contact theory to some extent.
  • Group size:
    • Increase number members in group = less cooperation as:
      • Increases free riding effect
      • Feel like they make less of a difference
      • Individual can be less identifiable
  • Culture affects Cooperation
    • Scattler and Keer(1991) – social norms that encourage cooperation play a key role in learning of behaviour
    • Gabrenya et al(1985)
      •  Individualistic cultures work better alone, lacks cooperation
      • Collectivistic work better with others

prejudice and discrimination

  • Discrimination – treats someone differently based on membership of a group rather than individual’s own merit
  • Prejudice – (un)favourable predisposition toward any member of any group.
  • Needs all 3 factors, cannot isolate any of the approach
  • Biological:
    • May be a natural reaction
      • Harris and Fiske(2006) – when there is perception of a threat to the outgroup, the amygdale may play a role in our perception of the outgroup
    • -ve:
      • Correlation research
      • Mostly adults
      • May be over-interpreted
      • Need to be cautious when attribution brain function to behaviour as need to consider ethics and need to consider emotion
  • Sociocultural:
    • Social norms play a key role in society’s prejudice
    • Moss-Reacusin(2012) – there is -ve prejudice toward females in attaining jobs in the scientific field.
    • Integrated threat theory- 3 types of threat
  1. Threats which create expectations about out-group
  2. Realistic threat eg. Competition for jobs
  3. Symbolic threats- eg. Meeting of cultures and potential loss of values
  • McLaren(2004) – The beliefs that immigrants will challenge or undermine their national values are stronger predictors of -ve attitude toward immigrants than realistic threats.
  • Cognitive:
    • Theory of threatened egoticism
      • Intergroup discrimination occurs when our own perception of self is threatened; acting out against out-group makes us feel better
      • Fein and Spencer(1997)
    • Availability heuristic – base decision on information that is most readily available – Chou and Edge(2012) is not necessarily about prejudice but it discusses availability heuristic, some clever connection to prejudice will be needed to use this study for this topic

origin of conflict and conflict resolution

  • Conflict is a continuum. Can start with competition from SIT, RCT then prejudice.
  • Group polarization(theory)
    • When decision and opinions of people in a group become more extreme than what they privately believe.
    • Ingroup and do no wrong, motives are justified and vicaversa.
  1. Boundary activation – need to distinguish
  2. Out- group negativity
  3. Out-group homogenization – all are the same(stereotype)
  4. In-group solidarity- greater threat means a stronger demand for loyalty to the in-group 

Conflict resolution
Education:
  • Diversity training
    • Students are labelled inferior and superior groups for a week. Then roles are switched so they understand how it feels. Usually inferior group that becomes superior are less mean as they know how it feels.
    • Little research to support
      • Steward et al(2003) – simulation was not highly effective
      • Byrnes and Kiger(1990)- there was no change in prejudice toward African Americans
  • Cooperative learning(jigsaw classroom)
    • Must rely on each other for their learning. Everyone must contribute so everyone is valued. (teaching each other after you have become the ‘master’ in your thing’
    • Paluck and Green(2009) increases peer relationship
    • Aronson and Bridgeman(1979) – lowers bullying and interaction between groups during play
    • -ve:
      • No evidence for long term benefits
      • Research done in schools have confounding variables
  • Social cognitive learning theory
    • Paluck(2009) – use of media(eg. Tv) can think through difficult issue, vicarious and non-threatening interaction between groups.
​Intergroup contact theory
  • Conditions:
    • Development of intergroup friends
    • Opportunity for personal interaction between members- Brown et al(2003)
    • Equal status
    • Support of authorities/law
    • Have common goal
    • Intergroup cooperation
  • Savelkoul et al(2011) – shows support
  • -ve:
    • Difficult to create situation to overcome meaning and practical obstacle
    • Result of experience may be limited to context of meaning
    • Language barrier
      • May need English translator, which is expensive, artificial and no practical to translate back and forth
    • Select out-group who speak the language
      • Usually means higher level of education
      • ‘superior’ group’s language may make behaviours salient
Information is mostly complied from:
​​Popov, Alexey. Psychology: for the IB Diploma. 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2018.
Crane, John. “IB Psychology.” ThinkIB Student Pages, www.student.thinkib.net/psychology?lg=8007.
Photo: ​ ​Oppong, Thomas. “Feeling Good About Yourself Makes Your Relationships Easier.” Medium, Kaizen Habits, 16 Aug. 2019, medium.com/kaizen-habits/feeling-good-about-yourself-makes-your-relationships-easier-2aa1c080cfaf.