81 terms



Terms in this set (...)

Transfer of meaningful information from one person to another
Communication is social because:
• It involves interrelationships among people
• It requires that people acquire a shared understanding of what particular sounds, words, signs and gestures mean
• It is the means through which people influence others, and are in turn influenced by others
Why do we smile? Kraut and Johnson- watched people while bowling and measured the amount of time they spent smiling
Why do we smile?
- To mask anger
- To smooth over a negative situation
- To soften a criticism
- To express reluctant compliance
- To make yourself happier (?)
Gaze and eye contact
Probably the most information-rich and important of the non-verbal communication channels
Functions of gaze:
(1) Can communicate liking
(2) Can communicate whether somebody's listening
(3) Can regulate turn-taking in conversation
(4) Can be used to secretly communicate information (nudge nudge; wink wink)
(5) Can be used to indicate aggression or disapproval
(6) Can signal power and/or status- Dovido et al- men and women in conversation where either in expertise field or not- when neither sex dominant, men assume gaze dominance over women
6 broad functions of touch:
o to communicate positive affect (appreciation, affection, reassurance, nurturance, sexual interest)
• to communicate playfulness and humour
o touch as control ... to draw attention to yourself or to induce compliance
• to accomplish tasks (e.g., a nurse taking your pulse)
• to communicate negative affect (e.g., pushing away, slapping)
o • to satisfy ritualized requirements (e.g., hello, goodbye)
Hall- interpersonal distance
• Intimate (up to .5 metres)
• Personal (0.5-1.25 metres). The norm for everyday interactions with friends and acquaintances
• Social (1.25-4 metres). The typical distance for casual interactions with people not well known, and also for business interactions
• Public (4-8 metres). Common for lecturers, public speakers, and celebrities
Interpersonal distance is regulated as a function of:
- Liking, status and culture
Signals that people use to indicate that they're ending their turn and looking for someone else to take the floor ...
- coming to the end of a sentence
- raising or lowering intonation of the last word
- drawing out the last syllable
- leaving a sentence unfinished to invite a continuation
- body motions (e.g., ceasing hand gestures, opening the eyes wide, sitting back, looking directly at the listener)
Signals that you want to keep talking and you're going to resist someone else butting in ...
o maintaining the same pitch
o keeping the head straight
o keeping the eyes unchanged
o holding the same gestures
o speaking louder and faster
Signals that you're happy for someone to continue (back-channel communication) ...
- nodding
- minimal encouragers (mm-hmm, OK, right)
Types of social skills (Riggio)
• emotional expressivity - letting others know your emotional state
• emotional sensitivity - being sensitive to others' emotional states
• emotional control - being able to control emotional expression when appropriate
• social expressivity - being comfortable in social situations such as parties
• social sensitivity - being influenced by the moods of those around you
• social control - being the leader
• social manipulation - manipulating others to get what you want
We often find ourselves mimicking the non-verbals of others; infants, found in animals as a way of sharing information and promoting shared learning; for humans, mechanism for acceptance and belonging
Communication Accommodation Theory
Knowing when (and to what extent) to converge your speech style to the partner.
Indicate liking and interest by making our speech more like the others (e.g., talking at about the same speed, tone, and intensity as the other person).
Alternatively, we can indicate dislike by diverging from the other person in terms of style.
Deciding how much information about yourself you should share with another person in an interaction; can lead to defensiveness and can become a barrier to intimacy
o strong reciprocity effects
o people disclose more to physically attractive others
o both males and females disclose more to females than to males.
What is assertion?
o presenting own perspective
o taking responsibility for own attitudes & feelings
o stating opinions as opinions
o leaving choice of response to other
Functions of assertion?
- To speak up, make requests, ask for favours and insist that your rights be respected
- To express negative emotions (complaints, resentment, criticism, disagreement, desire to be left alone) and to refuse requests
- To help you show positive emotions (joy, pride, liking someone, attraction) and to give and accept compliments
- To ask why and question authority or tradition
- To initiate, carry on, change and terminate conversations comfortably. To share feelings, opinions and experiences
~ 2nd Quiz Notes Start ~
6 Types of Love:
(1) Companionate love (friendship or best-friend) - Experience this love for a friend, doesn't have to be erotic or sexual relationships.
(2) Passionate Love (Very emotional; physically expressed) - Unlike companionate love, it is expected to be physically expressed as well as emotionally. Long term relationships usually start passionate and gradually morphs into companionate over time.
(3) Game-playing Love (all about playing the love game and winning it... relationships end when partner gets too boring or serious) - People manipulate , tease and it's just a game to them. Intense relationships early and then fragile later.
(4) Possessive love (emotionally intense, jealous, obsessed, dependant) - Kind of like passionate love except its warped by this intense jealousy. Ownership of partner.
(5) Logical love (looking for suitable mate; pragmatic lover who seeks contentment rather than excitement) - doesn't matter if you initially fall in love with them, you figure you will have a good life together.
(6) Selfless love (unconditionally caring, giving and forgiving; duty to give with no strings attached) - Not necessarily erotically expressed, but categorized by this selfless nature. Kind of love parents may have for children.
Effect of Physical Proximity:
You are most likely to settle down with people who are in your geographical space.

(1) Laws of probability... you can't fall in love with someone you never met. For example you are more likely to befriend new roommates at college or close rooms than other floors.
(2) Mere exposure ... the more you're exposed to something, the more you like it.
(3) Get to know each other in non-threatening way ... the focus is not explicitly on checking each other out -ambiguity about why you're hanging out frees up worries about rejection. For example if you are hanging out in a group it's an excuse to talk to certain people. If you go on a blind date, you are there to analyse and check each other out.
Physical Attractiveness
Argument is that there are certain things that we are more attracted to based on evolutionary traits.

People are superficial:
• Mums spend more time gazing at babies that are more beautiful than those that are less beautiful.
• Babies spend more time looking at attractive faces than unattractive faces.
• Good looking kids are more popular with their peers and have more friends.
• Teachers rate good looking kids as smarter and as having more potential.
• Good looking people have more dates and are more likely to be taken and get married.
• Even judges appear to get lighter sentences for the same crimes.
• Taller men:
o Height predicts success in men more than intelligence.
o They are seen to be smarter, have more leadership potential and earn more money.

Interestingly, despite all these advantages, there is no relationship between physical attractiveness and happiness and self esteem.
What is Physical attractiveness?
Of course attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder, particularly culturally defined and depends on personality.
However, people with symmetrical faces are seen to be seen as more good looking.

Women are seen to have a more attractive face if they have:
- Prominent cheek bones, large eyes, small noses (cuteness), wide smile, clear whites in eyes.
- There is a theory that men go for hourglass women , and you can see that with time the ideal women are presumed skinnier. However the waist to hip ratio has barely increased so we still look for larger wastes etc.

Body shapes for men includes: broad shoulders, tailored waste, taller and muscular bodies.
How do we choose Partners - Social Exchange Theory
According to social exchange theory, people are motivated to maximise benefits & minimise costs in relationships with others.
The value of a relationship is determined by:
• The qualities of your partner and
• Your alternatives e.g. what else could you get.
Do men and women look for different things - Evolutionary Psych Perspective:
There are different environmental pressures on men and women (e.g., male vs. female costs of reproduction). This has implication for love & attraction. When women have children you want people to provide for you and your child, look after you, have good income and they are loyal.

Classic evolutionary psych prediction:
Men care about youth and looks more (sign of health and reproductive potential)
Women care about personality & resources more (sign of parental quality and ability to support /protect.

To reiterate this, a study showed men are more attractive when they interact with a child ,when compared to vacuuming / being on their own / ignoring the child.
Male vs. Female Jealousy
Imagine your partner forming a deep, emotional attachment to another person.
Imagine your partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with another person.

Women are more hurt by emotional betrayal, and on average guys think physical betrayal is worse.

From an evolutionary point of view; men find sexual infidelity worse as they have settled to reproduce with the one woman in order to pass on genes when potentially they could have multiple partners.
I find you attractive study:
Attractive men and women approached members of the opposite sex and said:
I've seen you around campus and I find you attractive, will you...
• Go out with me tonight OR
• Come back home with me to my apartment tonight OR
• Have sex with me tonight

• 50 % of women agree to go on a date, 10% said yes to the apartment and 0% said yes to sex.
• 50% of men agree to go on a date, 80% said yes to apartment and 90% said yes to sex.
Close Relationships
Being in a good relationship is good for psychological, emotional and physical health. Being lonely has a very negative impact on health.

• Stroke patients who are socially isolated are more than twice as likely to have another stroke.
• A diverse social network makes people less susceptible to the common cold... the least sociable types are twice as likely to get colds as the most sociable.

On the otherhand, bad relationships are less supportive of health. Blister box study shows that when people in good relationships fight; it has little effect on their immunity. But when people in distressed relationships fight it suppresses immunity. Conflicts in relationships depletes immune system.
~ Self-verification theory
According to Bill Swann, we seek feedback that reinforces our pre-existing ideas about ourselves.

• A perverse consequence of this is that low self-esteem people are more attracted to targets who have a poor opinion of them than they do of targets who have a high opinion of them.
~ Gain-loss hypothesis
We tend to like those who initially dislike us and then warm to us, and we dislike people who like us initially and then turn cold.
~ Maltreatment effects
Many studies done in the 1950's and 1960's which would either expose infant animals to abusive 'caregivers' or would pair an aversive stimulus to a target.

They found that when oscillating punishment & reward: Both the Rajecki study (on chicks) and the Fisher study (on dogs) suggest that switching between reward and punishment can have perverse effects on infant animals.
~~ Maltreatment effects: Monkeys
o The baby monkeys experiment found that they would rather hang out with a monkey with fur and comfortable, rather than the cold cage with food resources.

o In the case of an abusive mother, results are counter-intuitive (and disturbing). Relative to a neutral condition, punishment would either:
Have no effect on bonding or affiliation with the target, OR
Increase the infant's apparent attachment to the target.
~~ Maltreatment effects: Rajecki Study (chicks)
o Chicks experiment: Rajecki and colleagues raised chicks in a cage fitted out with stuffed, cloth gloves. Twice daily, the chick would be shifted to a 'treatment' cage, where there was either:
Another stuffed, inanimate glove (control condition)
An empty glove filled with an experimenters hand that would stroke the chick
An empty glove filled with an experiments hand that would pummel the chick.

o The mistreated chicks gave three times more contentment calls in the presence of the glove than did the control chicks. Meaning they prefer the mean glove.
~~ Maltreatment effects: Fisher Study (dogs)
o Fish (1955) subjected 12 week old pups to varying levels of treatment from a human handler:
Daily indulgence for 30 minutes
Indulgence for 30 minutes followed by 30 minutes 'rough handling'
Entirely rough handling
Raised in isolation.

How long did they hang out with humans when released?
The person who was nicer was repaid with loyalty and love, however the person who was indulgence and punishment was loved more.
~ Oscillating punishment & reward in humans
Hints can be gathered from case studies on:

o Domestic violence ("traumatic bonding")
o Abused children attachement to abusive caregivers
o "identification with the aggressor" effects in Nazi camps / re-education camps
o Brainwashing among American POWs in the Korean War
o Stockholm Syndrome - People who have been kidnapped bond with kidnapper.
o Cult member's loyalty to malevolent cult leaders.
o Effects of hazing / initiation ceremonies
~ 2nd Quiz Notes End ~
The impact on individual task performance in the presence of others.
~ Triplett Experiment (1898)
- First social psychology experiment
- Examined how quickly children reeled a continuous loop of line either alone or with a partner on a "competition machine".
- He found that children typically reeled faster when they were doing this task with another person compared to when doing it alone.
~ Competing vs. Audience presence
- Increasingly it became apparent that an improvement in performance could be due to the mere presence of an audience, regardless of whether they were competing or just passively watching.
- This effect emerged not just among humans but also cockroaches, chickens, fish, and rats.
- But the evidence was patchy ... sometimes people / animals performed better when watched, and sometimes they performed worse!
-Experiments on animals started to uncover that it largely depended on the complexity of the task ...
~ Social Facilitation vs. Inhibition
Facilitation: The presence of others helped performance.

Inhibition: The presence of others hurt performance.
~ Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman 1969: Cockroach Experiment
4 Condition of mazes:
Simple - Mazes with goal straight ahead.
Complex - Mazes with 4 options, goal is straight and to the right.
Both simple and complex mazes were run with and without audiences, so the audience effect could be measured.
~Cockroach Experiment Findings:
In the Simple Maze, the presence of an audience helped the performance of the roaches (Social facilitation).

However in the Complex Maze, the presence of an audience hurt the roaches performance (social inhibition).
~ Does complexity of the task affect audience effects ?
After experiments on animals it was found that the complexity of the task has similar effects on humans when an audience is present.

Basically, when an audience is present, and the individual finds the task difficult, the audience will have a negative effect on performance (social inhibition).

Whereas, if the individual is an expert or comfortable with the task, having an audience will likely increase performance (social faciliation).
~Stutters Experiment (Allport, 1920):
- Showed that 93% of participants produced more words in a free association task while in the presence of another person rather than alone (social faciliation).

- However when the study was replicated with stutterers, the effect was reversed... 80% produced more words when alone compared to in front of someone else (social inhibition).

-When thinking of words in a free association task, it was found that stutters improved when they were alone as the task is difficult for them, so when they perform with others the audience has a negative effect.
~ Pool Experiment:
- Researchers watched people play pool and identified people who were good/bad at pool and put them into two categories.

- They would manipulate when other players (observers) would move closer to the pool table when the player was taking the shot.

For the people who were good at pool they increased performance by 14% (social faciliation) when people were watching closer as this was a simple task for them.

However bad pool players get worse by around 30% when the audience is watching (social inhibition), cause the task is complex for them and they feel pressure.
~~ Zajonic's (1965) drive theory:
The presence of other people is inherently arousing (non sexual), so your body starts preparing for the flight or fight response becoming 'drive".

According to the theory, drive increases the dominant response in the situation e.g. doing well if you are good at the task, or bad if you are not.

In easy tasks you have almost mastered a certain task, so the drive increases theory as your dominant response is to do well (social facilitation). However in hard tasks, your dominant response is to find it difficult, so performance suffers (social inhibition).
~~ Evaluation Apprehension Model: (Cottrell, 1972)
(Drive theory 2)
It's the same as the previous model, except the evaluation apprehension is causing the drive, not arousal.

So when you are being evaluated you want to do better , creating the drive , which in turns leads to the dominant response. This dominant response will lead to social facilitation or inhibition due to the task.
~~ Distraction Conflict Theory:
(Sanders et al., 1978)
(Drive theory 3)
Same sort of drive theory as the previous two, however Sanders believed the drive was brought about by attentional conflict (audience is distracting), which could possibly create cognitive overload.

When performing simple tasks, you dont need to think too much so the audience being distracting doesnt have much of an impact.

However when performing difficult tasks, you need high levels of concentration that is hurt by a distracting audience.

People are a source of distraction that produce conflict between attending to the task and attending to the audience- distraction alone impairs performance but conflict with increased arousal that facilitates dominant (habitual) responses may enhance performance. So drive is created by conflict itself- where should our concentration be?
~~ Problems with drive theories:
1. No evidence of increased arousal using physiological measures

2. What is drive? No specificity to the construct ...
~~ Self-awareness theory:
(Carver & Scheier, 1981; Duval & Wicklund, 1972)
(Non-drive theory 1)
- Is the comparison between the actual self (persons actual performance) and the ideal self (how they would like to perform).

- For easy tasks, the discrepancy in the actual and ideal is close, and you can see yourself closing that gap which increased motivation. This increased motivation then leads to increased performance.

- For harder tasks, the gap between actual and ideal is larger, so you cannot see yourself closing that gap, decreasing motivation. So when motivation decreases, performance decreases.
~~ Attention-overload model:
(Monteil & Huguet, 1999; Baron 1986)
(Non-drive theory 2)
- Audience presence causes cognitive overload. Need to focus on narrowing attention (focus on few central cues).
- Similar to distraction of conflict theory, but doesnt rely on drive. Argument is that the audience is distracting, causing cognitive overload.
- Narrowing attention to focus on tasks, aka blocking out distractions, is easier when the task is more simple. When the task is harder, all focus is needed, so blocking distractions takes away from the task performance.
~~ Self-Expectation and Social Evaluation theory:
(Sanna, 1992)
(Non-drive theory 3)
- In simple tasks, you have high self-expectations which leads you to expect a positive evaluation from the audience and therefore helps performance (social faciliation).

- In difficult tasks the opposite occurs and you have low expectations of yourself which leads you to expect negative evaluation from the audience which hinders performance (social inhibition).
When efforts are pooled and individual performances are anonymous, it can lead us to put in less effort.
~First rope experiment:
Ringelmann (1913)
-Participants pulled on a rope either alone or in groups.

- It was expected that the force per person would stay constant when groups got larger.

- However the force was found to not increase in proportion to group size, meaning that as the group got larger, the force per person decreased as more people slacked off.
~ 2nd Rope experiment:
(Ingham, Levinger, Graves & Peckham, 1974)
- People engaged in a rope pulling task while blindfolded.
- Thought they were working with others, however there were real groups and pseudo group (confederates who did not pull).

- They found again that in real groups, the drop in each individual performance decreased as the group increased as expected.

-However the decrease in the individual persons performance in the pseudo group was much larger than that of the real group. It drastically decreased when the group increased.
~ Cheering/Clapping experiment:
(Latane, Williams & Harkins, 1979)
- People told to make as much noise as they could by either clapping or cheering.
-Like the rope experiments, group size was manipulated and individual inputs were measured.
- Experiment also found that sound pressure per person decreased when the group size increased.
- Individuals likely felt they didnt need to try as hard when others where participating.
~ 3 Reasons why people may loaf in groups:
(1) Lack of evaluation apprehension:
- Presence of group members provides a cloak of anonymity for people who want to slack off.
- When ones output is identifiable to others, people fear being evaluated poorly by others and so chip in.

(2) Output equity:
- Your own theory of what others will do, so why do more than others?
- People believe that others will slack off so they loaf themselves to maintain equity.

(3) Matching to standard:
- People loaf because they dont have a clear performance standard to match.
- In groups people are less good at attaching goals and its hard to monitor individual performance, so people loaf because they dont have clear goals or standards.
~ Factors affecting social loafing:
(1) Whether or not the individual performance is identifiable

(2) Cross-cultural differences (people have been shown to work harder in groups in collectivist cultures)

(3) How cohesive the group is (wont slack off if you care )

(4) Intergroup competition

(5) Presence or absence of clear, aspirational goals

(6) How interesting or meaningful the task is. Indeed, if the task is very meaningful to a person, and they believe that other people are slacking off, they might work even harder on a collective task (social compensation)
- Phenomenon in which presence of others inhibits helpfulness.

-Research on the bystander effect was inspired by the Kitty Genovese Murder.

-She was murdered in a suburban area near units of houses, screamed for help scaring off the attacker, however since no one came to help, he came back and killed her.
~ 3 Explanations for the bystander effect:
(1) Diffusion of responsibility
(2) Social Influence
(3) Audience Inhibition
~ (1) Diffusion of Responsibility:
- People who are alone are most likely to believe they carry the entire responsibility for the action ... if they don't act, nobody will. The presence of other witnesses allows for diffusion of responsibility ... if I don't act, it's OK because other people will.

- In the case of Kitty, people didnt pick up the phone to call the police because they thought someone else would do it. Therefore the more people around, the more likely this affect takes place ironically, as you think surely someone will help.
~~ He's having a fit experiment :
(Diffusion of Responsibility)
- Students communicated with eachother via microphones in seperate cubicles. The groups considered of 2 people (self and other), 4 people or 6.

- They created a victim who made reference to their epilepsy early in the conversation. Mid-discussion the victim is heard to choke and gasp, then silence.

-Results showed that If it was just you and the other person over intercom, everyone helped within 6 minutes and nearly all people helped before the end of the fit. When there were more people in the groups, so 2 or 4 other people in your group that could help, they generally don't help, or they wait to see if other people help. Its not that they don't care, maybe they just think others can help better.
~ (2) Social Influence
- Emergencies are often ambiguous, and we look to others as a guide as to whether something is serious or not. If other people seem unworried, then we make the assumption that the event is not an emergency. This can be a problem if everybody is taking their non-intervening cues from everybody else.

- E.g. Emergencies are often ambiguous, and we look to others as a guide as to whether something is serious or not. If other people seem unworried, then we make the assumption that the event is not an emergency. This can be a problem if everybody is taking their non-intervening cues from everybody else.
~~ Lady in distress experiment:
(Latane & Rodin, 1969)
(Social Influence)
- Male participants were filling in a questionnaire, when they heard a woman struggle with a filing cabinet. There was then a crash and the sound of moaning. They were either alone, in pairs or with a passive confederate who didnt acknowledge the distress.

- Results showed that when people were alone, 70% of people checked to see if the woman was okay. If there was one other person in the room, only 40% helped her. They are trying to get a sign from the other person to see if it's an emergency. The confederate is when someone is doing absolutely nothing, and just ignores it. In that case, less than 10% of people helped.
~~ Where theres smoke theres fire experiment:
(Latane & Darley, 1970)
(Social Influence)
- While filling in a questionnaire, participants noticed smoke streaming under the door. Participants were either alone, with two other genuine participants or with two confederates who ignored the smoke.

- When alone, more than 70% reported the smoke, when in genuine groups around 35% reported the smoke and in the confederate groups only 10% reported the smoke.

- Whats powerful about this experiment is that its not someone elses problem, but it directly correlates to their own safety and they still ignore problems due to social influence.
~ (3) Audience inhibition
- We don't want to look foolish by over-reacting or making mistakes. This fear of social blunders is, of course, greater the more people are present.
~ Bystander Effect Weaknesses:
- The bystander effect is a robust phenomenon, however it is less strong when:

- Bystanders know each other.
- When they know there'll be an opportunity to interact later (& possibly explain their actions)
- If the victim is an acquaintance or relative
- If the victim is a child being abused publicly.
Is Prejudice a gendered phenomenon?

(Theory of Gendered prejudice)
- Some people argue that men are more likely to engage in intergroup conflict.
- Due to:
> Men more orientated to rankings and hierachies.
> More physically formidable, therefore they have tools for violent conflict.
> Men are programmed to accumulate resources to help with reproductive success, so if something poses a threat to that they form coalitions capable of initiating acts of aggression on members of outgroups (the male warrior hypothesis).
- Analyses show however that there is little difference between men and women prejudice. Although men might be more likely to get into intergroup conflict.
5 Prejudice Theories:
- Authoritarian Personality
-Frustration Aggression
- Relative Deprivation
- Realistic Conflict
- Social Identity
Authoritarian Personality Theory:
(Adorno et al. 1950)
- Argued that certain people prejudiced against all minorities.
-Personality involves:
> Respect for deference to authority
> Obsession with rank and status
> Problems with achieving intimacy
> Displaces anger and resentment onto weaker people.
~What Gives you Authoritarian personality:
- Adorno argued that these people have parents that use harsh disciplinarian practices to maintain obedience. - The result of this is mixed feelings towards parents, people grow up hating and loving parents.
- Because people feel fear or guilt articulating their hatred toward their parents, it is displaced onto 'weaker people' (scapegoats).
~Evidence for authoritarian personality:
- 2000 californians filled in an authoritarian personality questionnaire, and some responded to projective tests and were interviewed about childhood.
- Authoritarian personality was associated with scores from a range of scales including:
> Anti-Semitism
> Ethnocentrism
>Political and Economic conservatism
>Potential for facism
~ Problems with theory and research
(1) Data not entirely reliable: particularly the interpretation of the interviews and the Freudian test.

(2) Freudian underpinnings hard to pin down

(3) Theory doesnt lead to interventions. Subsequent research focused more on the social factors influencing inter group aggression. Didn't take into account context.
Frustration Aggression Theory:
-Argued that aggression (both interpersonal and intergroup) is caused by frustration.

-Frustration can be caused by a range of events such as :
> Economic hardship
> Overcrowding

- Not about personality, more environment. E.g. Riots seem to happen more in summer, prison riots due to overcrowding etc.
~ Hovland and Sears (1940) lynchings exp:
- Examined number of lynchings of black men and correlated it with the price of cotton.

-Found the price of cotton was correlated with the number of lynchings, such that as the price of cotton increases, the number of lynchings decreases and vise versa.
Relative Deprivation theory:
- Cause of frustration is relative deprivation, separated into two groups:

Egoistic relative deprivation:
- Ones sense that you have less than you're entitled to relative to your own aspirations or what other individuals have.

Fraternalistic relative deprivation:
> Sense that your group has less than its entitled to.

- Ego more related to stress, whereas people with fraternal channel it into group suppression and you gets whole groups of people feeling angry and frustrated, leading to riots etc.

- People tend to lash out after periods of long, steady improvements followed by a sudden dip. Whereas people in constant hardships make do with what they have got.
Realistic Conflict Theory:
- Argued that intergroup aggression is caused by competition for scarce resources.

- According to realistic conflict theory, it is when there are mutually exclusive goals (i.e only one group can win) that intergroup relations deteriorate.
~ Sherifs boy camp studies:
Stage 1: After mingling for a couple of days, camp is divided into two isolated groups.

Stage 2: Groups brought together to engage in competitions, winners get prizes and losers get nothing. People only had friends in their respective groups, fun of competition turned into serious competition and became unfriendly.

Stage 3: The groups were then put together to achieve goals, and they have to unit to meet a common goal or respond to a threat. They found that levels of intergroup hostility were reduced or eliminated.
Social Identity Theory:
According to social identity theory, the self comprises of two aspects:

- Your personal identity (attitudes, behaviours, memories that distinguish you from others). &

- Your social identity (group-based attitudes, behaviours and memories that distinguish your group from other groups. e.g. gender, country, team you support).

- Theory revolves around the fact that we have a fundamental need to feel good about ourselves. Motivated to think our groups and good groups. Its terrible to think that you cant feel proud of your groups etc. So for self esteem reasons, you think your group is a good group
~ Social identity theory and threat:
Friendly rivalry tends to turn to intergroup hostility when the positive distinctiveness of the group is threatened by an outgroup. Threat can take 2 forms:

- Value Threat: when group is criticized, trivialized or discriminated against by another group.

- Distinctiveness Threat: When the boundaries between the groups are blurred (each group wants to stand out).
~Evidence for distinctiveness threat:
(Roccas and Schwartz, 1993).
Made school students feel as if their school was moderately or extremely similar to another school. Then got people from their school to rate people from the other school.

- Found that the more you say student schools are similar, the more they disagree and the ingroup bias increases.
What can you do if your group is considered to be low status?
(1) Individual mobility: Assimilation into higher status group. E.g. Certain women pretended to be men to do better in their circumstances.

(2) Finding new dimensions of inter-group comparison. E.g. If you are not as wealthly dont compare your group in terms of wealth.

(3) Redefining value of status dimensions E.g. If people are poor they say money isn't everything, its corrupt.

(4) Comparison with different groups (downward comparison). E.g. If someone says your group sucks you say not as bad as this other group.

(5) Re categorizing the self at the super-ordinate level. E.g. Instead of saying i've joined more people in tertiary education, you say my university has prestige or is the best.

(6) Political activity to change the existing status relationship (particularly if the low status position is illegitimate).