|Group behavior: The concept of group behaviour is ambiguous as to whether the behaviour of individuals in a group or the behaviour of groups towards other groups is considered. Auxiliary terms are intra-group behaviour (behaviour of individuals) and inter-group behaviour (behaviour of groups). A third aspect is the possibility of forming new groups. In literature, based on Muzafer Sherif's terminology, intergroup behaviour is often used to describe both the behaviour of individuals within a group and the behaviour of groups towards other groups. See also collectives, communities, conflicts.
_____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. |
Psychological Theories on Group Behavior - Dictionary of Arguments
Haslam I 154
Group behavior/boys’ camp studies/Robbers Cave Experiment/Sherif/psychological theories: the studies (Sherif and Sherif, 1969(1) >Robbers Cave Experiment/Sherif, >Social groups/Sherif) showed that intergroup impressions, attitudes and behaviours are both (a) consequences of intergroup relations (as opposed to causes) and also (b) psychologically meaningful for group members. Specifically, in the studies, intergroup impressions (i.e., stereotypes) were shown to vary meaningfully in both content and valence so as to reflect changes in the competitive and cooperative relationships between the two groups.
Haslam I 155
Results: [the studies] provide[s] a clear path to follow in pursuing broader social change: to reduce negative stereotypes and foster positive intergroup attitudes, one needs to change the real relationships between real groups from which they arise. In this respect, seeking to promote intergroup harmony simply by bringing members of the two groups together to see that ‘they’re all just normal, decent people’ can be seen as dangerously naïve. >Social groups/psychological theories.
Haslam I 159
Ingroup antagonism: (Sherif and Sherif 1969(1): 284): „If two groups are irrevocably committed to conflicting objectives, there is little point in discussing conditions that are conducive to reducing the conflict. They will continue to cast blame for the state of things on each other. … In short, there are very real conflicts of vital interest that preclude the emergence of superordinate goals.“
1. Sherif, M. and Sherif, C.W. (1969) Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Row.
Michael W. Platow and John A. Hunter, „ Intergroup Relations and Conflicts. Revisiting Sherif’s Boys’ Camp studies“, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic studies. London: Sage Publications
- - -
Haslam I 173
Group behavior/minimal groups/dependence/VsTajfel/psychological theories: Gaertner and Insko (2000)(1) asked participants to allocate rewards but varied whether the other allocator was an ingroup member or an outgroup member, and whether participants would personally receive rewards or not. Participants favoured their ingroup over the outgroup, but only when they were dependent on an ingroup member for their own outcomes. Another study by Wolfgang Stroebe and colleagues (2005)(2) orthogonally manipulated participants’ dependence on the ingroup (yes, no) and the outgroup (yes, no) for rewards. As in Gaertner and Insko’s study, this showed that ingroup-favouring strategies were clearly strongest when there was dependence on the ingroup rather than the outgroup. See also >Group behavior/Tajfel, >Minimal groups/Tajfel, >Social Identity Theory/Tajfel, >Egoism/Tajfel.
Haslam i 174
Reciprocity: people Btend to respond to the dependency structure and then reciprocate with favouritism toward those on whom they are dependent, but this effect is considerably stronger for dependence on the ingroup (hence ‚bounded’) (Yamagishi and Kiyonari, 2000)(3).
This idea is also supported by recurring evidence that people do indeed tend to expect the ingroup to reward fellow ingroup members more (Gaertner and Insko, 2000(1); Jetten et al., 1996(4); Stroebe et al., 2005(3)). >Reciprocity/psychological theories, >Minimal group/psychological theories.
1. Gaertner, L. and Insko, C.A. (2000) ‘Intergroup discrimination in the minimal group paradigm: Categorization, reciprocation or fear?’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79: 77–94.
2. Stroebe, K.E., Lodewijkx, H.F.M. and Spears, R. (2005) ‘Do unto others as they do unto you: Reciprocity and social identification as determinants of in-group favoritism’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31: 831–46.
3. Yamagishi, T. and Kiyonari, T. (2000) ‘The group as container of generalized reciprocity’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 62: 116–32.
4. Jetten, J., Spears, R. and Manstead, A.S.R. (1996) ‘Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination: Distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 1222–33.
Russell Spears and Sabine Otten,“Discrimination. Revisiting Tajfel’s minimal group studies“, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic studies. London: Sage Publications_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
S. Alexander Haslam
Joanne R. Smith
Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017