Category Archives: Group/Intergroup Processes

Federal impasse averted, but fundamental partisan differences divide the U.S. government

U.S. Capital Building, Washington, D.C. Courtesy of Ed Brown.

The Federal budget was finally passed by the U.S. Congress at the last possible hour this past Friday before a complete shut-down of the government, which would have disrupted services in the U.S. and abroad.  Debates between the Republicans and Democrats have become more intractable and heated recently regarding spending and deficit reduction.

In research conducted by Sheldon and Nichols (2009), participants who identified as Republican or Democrat differed on the importance they assigned to extrinsic and intrinsic values.  Republicans were higher on extrinsic values (money, popularity, and image) than Democrats, while Democrats were higher on intrinsic values (intimacy, helping, and growth).  In other research, when threat from the outgroup party was present (versus not present), people who identify as political conservatives had high Social Dominance Orientation scores (endorsement of social hierarchy).  However, self-identifying liberals in the threat condition had low SDO scores (Morrison & Ybarra, 2009).

It might be difficult to generalize research on undergraduate samples to political representatives in Washington, D.C., but these findings highlight potential differences in values and threat responses between the political parties making important decisions for the future of the United States.  Nevertheless, these differences should not prevent necessary cooperation and compromise.

To read more:

Morrison, K. R. and Ybarra, O. (2009). Symbolic threat and social dominance among liberals and conservatives: SDO reflects conformity to political values. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1039 – 1052.

Sheldon, K. M. and Nichols, C. P. (2009). Comparing Democrats and Republicans on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Values. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 589 – 623.

Federal Budget (2011) – Government Showdown Averted

 

Obama to lay out plan this week to cut deficit

Monkey see, monkey yawn … other monkey yawn

 

By Erica Zaiser

Yawning has always been thought of as “contagious” among humans. When someone in a group yawns it always seems to set off a trend of yawning with people around. This has often been thought of as being social in the same way that you think things are more funny when other people laugh and you frown more when other people frown. In a new study reported on by the BBC, researchers have found that yawning as a contagion is not limited to the human species but is seen in chimpanzees as well. What is even more interesting is that chimps in their studies yawned more frequently after seeing chimps from their own group yawn as opposed to when they watched chimps from an outside group yawn. The researchers suggest that this might mean that yawning can be seen as a measure of empathy.

As far as I know there hasn’t been research which has shown if this yawning bias towards ingroup members is present for humans. Empathy in humans has been linked to pro-social behaviour and there is research suggesting that people tend to be more prosocial and feel more empathy towards people in their ingroup than in their outgroup. So if yawning is a measure of empathy, it would make sense that people, like chimps, would yawn more when they see members of their ingroup yawning than when they see outgroup members yawning.

Read more: Chimpanzees ‘catch’ contagious yawns from friends. BBC- Earth News.

Empathy-related responding: Associations with prosocial behavior, aggression, and intergroup relations. Social Issues and Policy Review. 2010.

Social Categorization and empathy for outgroup members. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2010.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Religion as a weapon: Time to disarm

By, Adam K. Fetterman
After the burning of a Koran in Florida, violent protests erupted in Afghanistan, killing at least 12 people, and it continues. As humans, we look for causes for such violence. As P.Z. Myers indicates, there is no shade of gray when it comes to the taking of another human life. What is it that makes people feel that it is acceptable to take someone’s life? Even when resulting from self-defense, it is a rare occasion that murder is the appropriate response. Regardless, there is no self-defense required in response to burning a book. Therefore, we look elsewhere for the cause or justification. One thing that is getting difficult to ignore, particularly in the current example, is religion. Many people, myself included, have had a hard time blaming religion for violence, because we want to be tolerant and accepting. There must be underlying factors beyond religion that drive these behaviors, right? There almost certainly are, but this recent eruption of violence over a book indicates that religion is playing a larger role than we typically credit. It appears that religion is a weapon.

Violent ideological groups tend to foster a number of justification techniques to substantiate acts of violence (Angie et al., 2011). For example, they foster feelings of moral superiority and righteousness, which makes them feel justified (Mumferd et al., 2008). As Angie and colleagues (2011) cite, this moral superiority is compounded by feelings of victimization and injustice. There is a clear connection between these findings and what we see in response to the Koran burning. Further findings implicate religion in these acts, such as the increasing of aggression when violent acts are sanctioned by a god (Bushman et al., 2007).

It can be hard to blame a whole religion for the acts of a few. To do so may even seem xenophobic. However, it continues to grow difficult to give religion a free pass, as Jerry Coyne points out quite eloquently. We see that religion gives individuals the justification needed to act in a violent matter. Even if the religion is not the root cause, it appears to be a powerful weapon. If so, it is time to put down the weapons and work things out like rational humans.

“Afghans Protest for Fifth Straight Day Over Florida Koran Burning” – FoxNews.com

“Shades of Gray”- P.Z. Myers, Pharyngula.

“What Does it Take to Blame Religion?” – Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True.

Angie, A. D., et al. (2011). Studying Ideological Groups Online: Identification and Assessment of Risk Factors for Violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 627-657

Mumford, M. D. et al. (2008). Violence in Ideological and Non-Ideological Groups: A Quantitative Analysis of Qualitative Data. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1521-1561

Bushman, B. J., et al.  (2007). When God sanctions killing: Effect of scriptural violence on aggression. Psychological Science, 18, 204-207.

Read all of Adam K. Fetterman’s posts here.

Why do we join groups?

By Kevin R. Betts

It seems that we are all a member of at least one group; most of us are a member of many. Although our membership within some of these groups is probably involuntary (e.g., family), we go out of our way to join other groups. We join book clubs, bowling leagues, congregations, and tag-football teams, just to name a few. Some of us even go so far as to join extremist groups such as terrorist cells or violent political movements. What draws us to seek membership within these varied groups? Why are we willing to sacrifice our own time, energy, and resources for the sake of the groups to which we belong?

Hogg, Hohman, and Rivera (2008) examined these questions from a social-psychological perspective by contrasting three motivational accounts for group membership. These explanations originate from work on the sociometer model, terror management theory, and uncertainty-identity theory. The sociometer model argues that people have a need to be belong, and that self-esteem acts as a meter of successful group belonging. Greater feelings of inclusion within groups should equate to higher levels of self-esteem according to this model. Terror management theory argues that people are motivated to reduce fear of their own death, and that groups provide consensual belief-confirmation that drives their members to belong. It is comforting to share our world views with like-minded others and to hear them share similar views because it provides us with a sense of meaningful existence. Uncertainty-identity theory argues that people have a basic need to reduce uncertainty about themselves and their place in the world, and that group identification can reduce such uncertainty. Group membership may reduce this uncertainty through its associated norms that prescribe attitudes, feelings, and behaviors for us.

Hogg et al. (2008) conclude that the sociometer model, terror-management theory, and uncertainty-identity theory each play a role in explaining why people join groups. Yet, they argue that uncertainty-identity theory might provide an especially powerful explanation because of its wide generality to all groups and group contexts. What do you think? Do these explanations account for why you joined the groups that you are a part of, or does some other framework better explain your reasons for group membership?

Read more:

Hogg, M.A., Hohman, Z.P., & Rivera, J.E. (2008). Why do people join groups? Three motivational accounts from social psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1269-1280.

Inside Al Qaeda (Newsweek)

N.Y. Anti-Mosque Leader Defends Group that Clashed with British Police (Newsweek)

View other posts by Kevin R. Betts

Strategic advantages to helping international out-groups

U.S. aid workers load supplies for relief efforts in Japan

By Kevin R. Betts

The United States has played a supportive role in at least two major world events recently. In response to a natural disaster in Japan, U.S. officials sent monetary and human resources to aid in recovery efforts. In response to government-backed violence in Libya, U.S. officials helped initiate a no-fly zone to protect civilians. One thing that is interesting about these prosocial acts is that they both involve the U.S. helping an out-group. Taking away from limited  resources that might be devoted to local problems, the U.S. has voluntarily sought to help members of the international community. Why might the U.S. see value in helping these international out-groups at the expense of problems at home? Are the intentions of the U.S. government purely humanitarian, or might officials see a more strategic advantage to helping these international out-groups?

Research by van Leeuwen and Täuber (2008) suggests that helping an out-group also garnishes some benefits for the in-group. For one, the act of helping in and of itself is associated with power differentials which may reduce the recipient’s degree of autonomy. When the U.S. offered assistance to disaster-ravaged Japan and war-torn Libya, they placed these countries in a position of dependency on the U.S. Even if assistance is welcomed, it carries with it the implied notion that the U.S. is qualified and able to provide help where these countries cannot help themselves. Helping out-groups also renders the in-group a sense of meaningfulness and purpose to the degree that being able to help implies that the in-group is valued and needed. Providing assistance to Japan and Libya confirms the beliefs of many American citizens that their country holds a valuable position in the world such that other countries rely on their help. Third, out-group helping promotes a favorable image of the in-group in the eyes of beneficiary out-groups and other outside observers. Providing help to Japan and Libya alerts the international community that the U.S. promotes humanitarian values and goals.

Whether or not U.S. officials recognize all of these advantages to helping international out-groups is unclear. Nonetheless, the recent prosocial actions of the U.S. can be expected to sway the power differential in the favor of the U.S., promote a sense of meaningfulness and purpose among American citizens, and enhance the image of the U.S. abroad.

Read more:

Tsunami aid and relief: How you can help

Gunfire, explosions heard in Tripoli

van Leeuwen, E., & Täuber, S. (2008). The strategic side of out-group helping. In S. Stürmer, & M. Snyder (Eds.), The psychology of prosocial behavior (pp. 81-99). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

View other posts by Kevin R. Betts

Reshaping reality by reshaping social perceptions: the power of talk in promoting equality

By: Christopher C. Duke, Ph.D.

If you have taken an introductory social psychology class, you have probably heard of stereotype threat. This is a phenomenon where making people aware of a stereotype that could refer to the self increases the chance that the stereotype will come true. For example, on math tests where the students’ gender is made salient, women tend to perform worse than men. When the researchers emphasized to participants that gender scores on the test tended to be equal, their scores became equal. The same difference has been found on tests between black and white students; when the students’ race was emphasized, black students’ scores were lower than white students, but when equality was emphasized, the scores were the same.

While there are still competing explanations for why stereotype threat occurs, it is a very well documented phenomenon that can help to explain demographic achievement gaps. Fortunately, there are ways to counter the negative effects of stereotype threat and reduce demographic inequalities. One of the earliest ways discovered is to emphasize the expected positive outcomes on a task for under-achieving groups. While this does work, it is not always practical in real-world situations. An ideal solution would be a brief intervention with long-lasting effects that could work across many different situations. Smith and Postmes (2011) found that allowing small groups to discuss and challenge the validity of the stereotype can also reduce stereotype threat, though the duration of this promising positive effect was not fully known. This suggests groups can use discussion to reinterpret negative group stereotypes in a way that can empower the group and overcome negative effects.

A new study in Science advances our knowledge of the positive potential stereotype threat interventions (Walton & Cohen, 2011). The researchers theorized that stereotype threat occurs in part when people construe feelings of social adversity as an indictment of their social belonging. If social adversity can be portrayed by students themselves as universal to all students but temporary, then the negative effects of stereotype threat might be reduced. In the experiment, black and white first-year college students were subtly encouraged to generate such messages in the hopes that it would have long-lasting positive effects throughout their university career. This is indeed what happened, and the effects were powerful and long-lasting: compared to a control group, black students who received the intervention as freshmen achieved higher grades. Not only were their academic scores better, but they reported better health and they visited the doctor less, too. These effects were mediated by the students’ subjective construal of adversity; this means that feelings of social belonging are likely to be a key part of the process in reducing stereotype threat. Interestingly, students did not attribute these positive effects to the brief intervention they experienced three years earlier. Considering the brevity of the intervention, and the durability of its effects, this appears to be a very powerful tool in reducing demographic achievement gaps. More research is needed to better understand the processes behind and effects of the intervention, but it speaks to the power of social expectations to cripple our accomplishments, and yet also of our power to take steps to consciously reshape the social landscape in a way that leads to real and lasting change for the better. People often lament that we talk too much about problems instead of taking action; in some cases, talking may be one of the best actions we can take.

Smith, L. G. E., & Postmes, T. (2011). Shaping stereotypical behaviour through the discussion of social stereotypes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 50-74.

Walton, G. M., & Cogen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331, 1447-1451.