PY204

Lecture 6
Intergroup Relations

Collective Action
 Overview
 Review of previous lectures:
Social cognition & Social identity theory
Processing biases

 The role of emotions

 Relative deprivation

 Other considerations

 Approval forms and consent forms – Envelope on Jonathan’s door

 Collective action – Civil rights
 1/12/55 Rosa Parks

 Refuses to give up her seat and arrested

 Montgomery Freedom Movement announces

 1 day boycott of buses- hoped for 60% participation

 100% participation

 Martin Luther King elected leader of movement

 Boycott lasted 382 days

 Martin Luther King arrested 21/2/56

 Segregation declared illegal 14/11/56

 Martin Luther King travelled 780,000 miles (208 speeches)

 Despite violence against himself and family advocated

 Non-violence

 Martin Luther King assassinated 4/4/68

 Question we need to address

Given all the problems in the world, why don’t

people engage in collective action to tackle these
problems and/or change their conditions?
Social identity theory
 Social cognition as process
Perception of our social world

 Perception of social stimuli e.g., people

Categorise, organise information –
influenced by contextual cues e.g., salience of differences

 Evaluation
* Impose social meaning using existing knowledge, group
norms/values, schemas, social roles.
*Assign valence (good, bad, ambivalent)

 Social Behaviour
e.g., prejudice, discrimination, support, approach, avoid, obey,
comply, conform
 Biased processing
 As we’ve discussed previously, these processes
simplify and enrich our social cognitive functioning
(Doise)

 But, they do so at a cost –

incorporate inaccuracies

 Encourages ‘processing’ biases

 Interpersonal – intergroup continuum
Any interaction can be classified at some point on this continuum.

Tajfel (1978)
 Interpersonal interaction:

Determined by individual characteristics

 Intergroup interaction:
Determined by membership of the group

 Group behaviour is not a loss of identity, but a change in identity

 Multiple social selves

Social identity theory: Tajfel and Turner, (1979)
Also… Self-Categorization Theory (Turner et al. 1987)

1) Categorization - self & others

2) Identification with ingroups – us versus them
3) Search for positive distinctiveness - differences
(Intergroup distinctiveness)
4) Social comparison – compare our groups to other groups

Why?
 Typically, individuals attempt to maintain positive self-esteem
 But, we can derive self-esteem from group memberships

 So, not only different, but better

 Typically, comparison occurs on dimensions that favour the ingroup

(e.g., Skevington, 1981).
 Social identity theory
 Although SIT suggests a role for self-esteem…

 It does not incorporate other emotions.

 Why could this be a problem?

 Because emotions motivate behaviours

 Because emotions motivate specific behaviours

 Social Identity theory
 Social Identity (as opposed to personal identity):
Aspects of the self-concept which are associated with
group membership.

 Social identity theory:

We can define ourselves in terms of category memberships.

 Individual self-esteem is linked to group membership

 Collective self-esteem

 Especially, for groups with which we highly identify

 People use intergroup comparisons to feel good about their

ingroup, and by extension, themselves.
 Social Identity and collective action
 Sometimes, our ingroup cannot make a favourable
comparison with outgroups.

 One method of affirming the self is to leave the ingroup.

Individualistic strategy

 One method of affirming the value of the ingroup, is

collective action.
Collective strategy
 What can group members do to escape stigmatization?
Individualistic strategy

 Leave group – not always possible

e.g., social mobility, permeability of group boundaries

BUT

May not wish to leave group

Level of identification

Perception of ‘fairness’
 What can group members do to escape stigmatization?

Collective strategy

 Change ‘value’ of group e.g., ‘black is beautiful’

 Opt for alternative world view

(e.g., Hippies, Punks, Goths)

 Challenge legitimacy of status relations

e.g., through conflict, lobbying –
collective ACTION
 Collective action tendencies
Why don’t members of disadvantaged groups mobilize?

What sources of potential group mobilization exist?

 Examine predictions from:

Social Identity theory
Intergroup emotions theory
Relative deprivation theory

 Combine them to form distinct, but complimentary

paths to collective action.

 Final lecture: Terrorism

 Social Identity theory
Responses to inequality
Ellemers, Wilke, & van Knippenberg (1993)

 Where lab groups exist within a justifiable status hierarchy,

subordinate groups display little concern with inferiority.

 Where status differentials are inflexible or unfair, subordinate groups

display

 increased identification
 ingroup favouritism
 hostility towards dominant group –
Remember minority identity in PY105?

Moral component to judgements

 Social Identity theory
Responses to inequality
Wright, Taylor, Moghadam (1990)

 Impermeable group boundaries evoke non-normative,

collective strategy.

 That is, reject prevailing hegemony

BUT..
 If even slightest chance of advancement

(e.g., ‘token’ members are allowed to advance), then

individualistic strategies more likely to be utilised.
 Social Identity theory
Responses to inequality
Summary
 When people perceive illegitimate, impermeable group
boundaries, they react with greater ingroup identification.

 Strength of identification predicts willingness to

participate in future collective action (Simon et al., 1998).

 Moral component of status differentials – procedural

justice

 Emotional component
People likely to react emotionally to illegitimate status
differentials e.g., experience anger, resentment
Other processing biases
 Attributions
Who did what and why?
Ultimate attribution error (Pettigrew, 1979)

 Positive event:
ingroup; character – outgroup; situation

 Negative event
ingroup; situation - outgroup; character

Moral component to judgements

 Attributions
Who did what and why?
Ethnocentrism

 We are positive, they’re negative

 Same behaviour, different interpretation
 Biased in favour of ingroup

For example, attributions of same behaviour

“they’re aggressive, we’re assertive”
“they’re hostile, we’re defending our rights”

Outgroup more often viewed as unfair

Moral component to judgements ‘justice’

 Conflict
Mirror-image perceptions
 Same actions, different attributions of hostility

Tobin & Eagles (1992); White (1984), see Myers (2002)

Perceptions of Russians and Americans

 Preferred mutual disarmament

 Did not want to disarm while other side armed

 Perceived other side as wanting military superiority

 Thus, both nations wanted to disarm, but both ‘compelled’ to arm

 Implications for current global relationship??

 Conflict
Mirror-image perceptions
 Misconceptions

Bronfenbrenner (1961)
Most people in rival nations
have similar perceptions of
rivals

 True incompatibility
 Conflict
Processing biases
 Janis (1989); Tetlock (1988)

 Conflict reduces rationale thinking

 Conflict induces simplistic thinking

e.g., rely on stereotypes

Vicious circle (Bronfenbrenner, 1961; Deutsch, 1986)

Expect hostility – behave aggressively – receive hostility
Emotions
 What is an emotion?
 Emotion is adaptive – an immediate reaction to specific event;
acts as a signal e.g., event requires action, or safe not to act.

 Action tendencies – motivates and prioritises specific motive

e.g., fight or flight.

 Emotion can effect judgement, perception, memory, problem solving,

and task performance.

 Emotion – a verbal conceptualisation of physiological experience.

Therefore, culturally derived meaning.
 Emotion Response Triad
 Physiological Changes
e.g., FEAR - heart rate increases, digestion stops, blood
rushes to muscles; sympathetic nervous system.

 Motoric Expression – face, body, voice

 Feeling States – ‘Subjective Feeling’:

A reflection of all components of functioning; the end result
of the perceptual and physiological changes due to event-
related emotional processes.
 Theories of emotion
Schachter - Singer theory
 Event ► Physiological change ► Appraisal ► experienced emotion

 This implies that there are limited amount of physiological

responses; a cognitive appraisal is required to interpret the
emotion.

 We can also check the ‘suitability’ of the primary appraisal

 i.e., secondary appraisal; event and self

 We can assess if we have resources to react appropriately

 Appraisal theory of emotion
Secondary
appraisal

EMOTION
Event Primary
appraisal
Action tendencies

Physiological
response
Hormones

Expression
 Appraisal theory of emotion
 Different emotions are associated with similar, if not identical,
physiological responses

 Identical events can generate different emotional responses

 Primary appraisal: assessment of event

 Secondary appraisal: ‘suitability’ of primary appraisal and search for

resources to cope with the event

 But, appraisal can happen ‘holistically’

 Emotions are fundamentally social
 Its tempting to think of emotions as processes that happen
within an individual.

BUT….
 Emotions can be a consequence of other people
 Emotions can be a form of communication between people
 Emotions can change relations between people

Some emotions are explicitly social:

 Embarrassment
 Shame and guilt
 Jealousy and envy
 Love
 Grief
People can experience emotion in groups
 Groups are associated with a range of strong emotions
(hate, pride, despair, joy)

 Anxiety (Stephan & Stephan, 1985)

 Guilt (Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, 1998)

 Anger and fear (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000)

 Schadenfreude (Leach, Spears, Branscombe, & Doosje,

2003)
 Intergroup Emotions Theory

 People can experience emotion in groups

 Intergroup Emotions Theory
(Mackie et al., 2000; Smith, 1999)

 When social identity is salient, appraisals relevant to

the ingroup will trigger intergroup emotions.

 Appraisal
 Expression
 Coping

 Groups socialise members in regulating / expressing

emotions
 Intergroup Emotions Theory

 Categorisations not only cognitive, they activate

associated emotions

 For example, thinking of ingroup activates

beliefs/knowledge and emotions such as pride

 Thinking of outgroup activates beliefs/knowledge

and emotions such as pride
 Intergroup Emotions Theory

 People can experience emotions on behalf of the group

 Intergroup emotions
 Prioritises specific actions

 Anger and disgust towards outgroup predicts unwillingness

to engage in contact (Esses, & Dovidio, 2002) and desire to
attack (Mackie et al., 2007)

Following aggression

 Ingroup directed guilt evokes desire to provide reparations

(McGarty et al., 2005)

 Satisfaction evokes more aggression (Maitner et al., 2007)

Relative deprivation
 Potential cause of conflict
 Perceptions that discrepancies exist between
‘us’ and ‘them’.

 Unjustified and illegitimate perpetuation of

discrepancies

 The role of emotion

 Equity
Equity:
Ratio of input is equal to outcomes relative to another
relevant person (Baron, Kerr, & Miller, 1999 p. 145).

 Deviation in either direction is aversive:

* If others work harder, but I get more, I may feel guilty.

* If situation reversed, I may feel anger.

(Note the parallels with illegitimacy in SIT)
 Equity
 Higher status groups/individuals often assign themselves
greater rewards

 May justify by claiming superiority

 Or, downgrading subordinates e.g., ‘just world’ (Lerner,
1980).

 Outcomes perceived as unfair elicit more aggression

than unpleasant outcomes

Moral component to judgements

 Relative Deprivation
 Discrepancy between what I/we have and what I/we should
have/deserve.

 Egoistical versus fraternal deprivation

(Runciman, 1966).

Guimond & Dube-Simard (1983):

 Intergroup, but not interpersonal deprivation correlated
with support for political change (Canada).
 Relative Deprivation Theory
(Gurr, 1970; Runciman, 1966)
 Group members must perceive a collective disadvantage to
mobilize (fraternal deprivation).

ALSO….
 SIT; members must perceive their collective identity.

 Collective disadvantage may itself, promote a sense of

group identity e.g., class consciousness

 Hence, group identity may be a precursor OR a

consequence of collective disadvantage.
 Relative Deprivation Theory
(Gurr, 1970; Runciman, 1966)
Vanneman & Pettigrew (1972)
 Dominant and subordinate groups can experience relative
deprivation.

NB…
 RELATIVE deprivation: often it is ‘high achieving’
members of minority groups that mobilise to redress
perceived inequalities (e.g., Abeles, 1976).

 Organisers tend to have higher income and more years in

education than most group members.
 The story so far…
 Illegitimate group boundaries increases ingroup
identification and collective dissatisfaction.

 Identification related to collective action.

 Relative deprivation produces collective

dissatisfaction.

 Moral component of this dissatisfaction.

 Emotional reaction to dissatisfaction.

 But…
 Often, people who are disadvantaged do not
attempt to change their position in society, or
change the status quo (Klandersman, 1997).

 For example, disadvantaged groups may

believe it is impossible to change their position
in society (low efficacy, Bandura, 1999).
 Coping with problems
Lazarus (1991)
 Emotion-focused coping –

regulate emotions related to the situation.

 Instrumental coping –
obtain information, mobilize, act.
 Two routes to collective action
Spears et al., 2004
When groups perceive unjustified, collective disadvantage,
they may react in two ways:

 Emotional social support (ESS) –

anger: promotes collective action.

 Instrumental social support (ISS) –

efficacy: perception that other ingroup members recognize
collective disadvantage and are willing to act.

 Thus, group-based appraisals (ISS) evoke emotional

social support, which validates felt anger (ESS).
 Two routes to collective action
Spears et al., 2004
Integrative model that suggests:
COMPLIMENTARY, but distinct processes related
to perceived intergroup inequalities.

 Collective disadvantage increases group identity

evoking group based appraisals and emotions.

 Two ‘motors’ of collective action.

 Collective action frames
(Gamson, 1992; Klandermans, 1997)
 Collective action frames

“sets of collective beliefs that serve to create a

state of mind in which participation in
collective action seems meaningful”

Klandermans (1997, p.17)

 Summary
Intergroup bias can contribute to intergroup conflict,
but does fully explain it.

Group members must perceive that they have a collective

identity, and feel collectively disadvantaged.

Moral component to judgements about others and their

treatment of ingroup – procedural justice.

Unjustified perpetuation of inequalities, increases anger, search

for cognitive alternatives, which may involve collectively
attempting to redress inequalities leading to increases in
material circumstances and/or status relationships.

But why don’t more groups engage in this process?

Other considerations
 Other considerations
Triggering events
 Specific instances of inequality not enough

 Expectancy of change:
The social climate must be viewed as in a state of
flux.

 Charismatic leader

 Its very difficult to predict social movement formation

 Ideology
Social Representations

System justification approach

 Ideology is a means to maintain power relations, or control
and dominance e.g., Marx, Gramsci.

 Hegemony

 Argues against elements of social identity theory

(allows for outgtoup favouritism)

Jost & Banaji (1994)

 “the psychological process by which existing social
arrangements are legitimized, even at the expense of personal
and group interests”.
 Ideology
Social Representations
 Intergroup relations use stereotypes
 Can be used to justify status relations.

 Example: division of labour; patriarchal dominance.

 ‘Essence’ as reason for status relationship

 Intergroup relations not simply an individual cognitive

process, but linked to the needs of an “ideological
environment”. (Jost & Banaji, 1994)
 Ideology: Summary
Social Representations
 This approach is appealing because it explains the
problems associated with a cognitive approach.

 That is, explains the pervasiveness of stereotypes

(they are not created anew each time they are used)

 Their internalisation by minority groups despite the fact that

they threaten self-serving interests.

In many cases, disadvantaged groups defer to privileged

higher status groups.
 Question
 Do some ideologies lend themselves to collective action?

 Political parties

 Lobbying groups; business, political agendas

 Unions

 Religious groups
 Next time...
Based on the topics discussed so far, next week,
we’ll discus one particular type of collective action:

 Terrorism
 Thank you for listening
 Any questions?
 Recommended reading
 Deaux, K., Reid, A., Martin, D., & Bikmen, N. (2006).
Ideologies of diversity and inequality: Predicting collective
action in groups varying ethnicity and immigrant status.
Political Psychology, 27, 123-146.

 Van Zoomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. G., & Leach, C. W.

(2004). Putting your money where your mouth is! Explaining
action tendencies through group based anger and group
efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87,
649-644.