Social:Intergroup relations

From HandWiki
Revision as of 12:40, 5 February 2024 by John Stpola (talk | contribs) (url)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Short description: Aspect of organizational theory
Part of a series on
Psychology
Basic types
Applied psychology

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.[1][2]

In 1966, Muzafer Sherif proposed a now-widely recognized definition of intergroup relations:

Whenever individuals belonging to one group interact, collectively or individually, with another group or its members in terms of their group identification, we have an instance of intergroup behavior.[3]

Research on intergroup relations involves the study of many psychological phenomena related to intergroup processes including social identity, prejudice, group dynamics, and conformity among many others. Research in this area has been shaped by many notable figures and continues to provide empirical insights into modern social issues such as social inequality and discrimination.[4]

History

While philosophers and thinkers have written about topics related to intergroup relations dating back to Aristotle's Politics,[5] the psychological study of group attitudes and behavior began in the late 19th century.[6] One of the earliest scientific publications on group processes is The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, written in 1895 by French doctor and scientist Gustave Le Bon. Le Bon proposed that a group of individuals is different from the sum of its parts (often paraphrased as "a group is more than the sum of its parts"). This fundamental idea of crowd psychology states that when individuals form a group, this group behaves differently than each individual would normally act. Le Bon theorized that when individuals formed a group or crowd, there would emerge a new psychological construct which would be shaped by the group's "racial [collective] unconscious."[7] Le Bon put forth three phenomena that explained crowd behavior: submergence (or anonymity), when individuals lose their sense of self and responsibility by joining a crowd, contagion, the tendency for individuals in a crowd to follow the beliefs and behaviors of the crowd, and suggestion, which refers to how the beliefs and behaviors of the crowd are shaped by a shared racial unconscious.[7] Subsequent generations of intergroup relations and social influence researchers built from these foundational ideas and explored them through empirical studies.[6]

The empirical study of intergroup relations, as well as the broader field of social psychology, grew tremendously in the years following World War II. The events of World War II, including the rise of Adolf Hitler and Fascism, the Holocaust, and the widespread use of propaganda, led many social scientists to study intergroup conflict, obedience, conformity, dehumanization, and other related phenomena.[6] Social scientists were interested in understanding the behavior of the German population under Nazi rule, specifically how their attitudes were influenced by propaganda and how so many could obey orders to carry out or support the mass murder of Jews and other minority groups as part of the Holocaust.[8] Several prominent social psychologists were directly affected by the Nazi's actions because of their Jewish faith, including Kurt Lewin, Fritz Heider, and Solomon Asch. Muzafer Sherif was briefly detained by the Turkish government in 1944 for his pro-communist and anti-fascist beliefs.[9] These scientists would draw from these experiences and go on to make major theoretical contributions to intergroup relations research as well as the broader field of psychology.[8]

The cognitive revolution in psychology in the 1950s and 60s led researchers to study how cognitive biases and heuristics influence beliefs and behavior.[6] The resulting focus on cognitive processes and meaning-making represented a significant shift away from the mainstream behaviorist philosophy that shaped much of psychology research in the first half of the 20th century.[10] During and after the cognitive revolution, intergroup relations researchers began to study cognitive biases, heuristics, and stereotypes and their influences on beliefs and behavior.[10] Solomon Asch's studies on conformity in the 1950s were among the first experiments to explore how a cognitive process (the need to conform to the behavior of the group) could override individual preferences to directly influence behavior.[11] Leon Festinger also focused on cognitive processes in developing cognitive dissonance theory,[12] which Elliot Aronson and other researchers would later build upon to describe how individuals feel liking for a group they were initiated into but whose views they may not agree with.[13]

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s led social scientists to study prejudice, discrimination, and collective action in the context of race in America. In 1952, the NAACP put out a call for social science research to further study these issues in light of the Brown v. Board of Education lawsuit.[14] Gordon Allport's 1954 book The Nature of Prejudice provided the first theoretical framework for understanding and counteracting prejudice, and cemented prejudice as a central focus of social psychology.[1] In his book, Allport proposed the contact hypothesis which states that interpersonal contact, under the correct conditions, can be an effective means of reducing prejudice, discrimination, and reliance on stereotypes.[1][15] Subsequent generations of scientists built on and applied Allport's contact hypothesis to other domains of prejudice including sexism, homophobia, and ableism.[16]

In 1967, Martin Luther King spoke at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association urging social scientists to advance causes of social justice in their research.[17] In his speech, King called on scientists to study many topics related to the civil rights movement, including the barriers to upward social mobility for African Americans, political engagement and action in the African American community, and the processes of psychological and ideological change among African Americans and Whites.[17]

Intergroup relations research in the final decades of the 20th century refined earlier theories and applied insights from the field in real-world settings. For example, Lee Ross applied his research on correspondence biases and attributional errors in his work on the conflict resolution process in Northern Ireland during The Troubles.[18]

Other researchers have focused on positive elements of intergroup behavior, including helping, cooperation, and altruism between groups.[19][20] One example of this is a recent field study by Betsy Paluck and colleagues, where they used a radio drama infused with positive social norms to increase reconciliation behaviors and attitudes among an entire village in Rwanda.[21]

Researchers have also applied intergroup theories to workplace settings; one such example is Richard Hackman's work on creating and managing groups or teams in the workplace. Hackman proposed that teams and work groups are successful when specific conditions are met. Specifically, when members of the team and their clients are satisfied, team members are able to grow professionally, and team members find their work meaningful.[22]

The advancement of technology has also shaped the study of intergroup relations, first with the adoption of computer software and later with the utilization of neuro-imaging techniques such as fMRI.[8] One example of psychologists leveraging new technology to advance intergroup relations research is the implicit-association test (IAT), developed by Anthony Greenwald and colleagues in 1998 as a means to measure the strength of implicit (automatic) association of between different mental representations of objects.[23] The IAT is commonly used to measure the strength of implicit bias for a variety of constructs including gender-workplace stereotypes and stereotypes about race.[24][25]

Foundational theories

Contact hypothesis

  1. Have relatively equal status
  2. Have shared goals
  3. Be able to cooperate with each other
  4. Recognize an authority or law that supports interactions between the two groups.[15]

Some researchers have critiqued the contact hypothesis, specifically its generalizability and the fact that intergroup contact can result in an increase rather than decrease in prejudice.[26][27]

Realistic conflict theory

The Robbers Cave Experiment was conducted in 1954 and was designed to test theories of intergroup conflict. The experiment was designed so that there were two groups of campers, the Eagles and the Rattlers. As the independent variable, experimenters devoided the campers of certain rewards and resources. It was found that when there is a limited amount of resources, there will inevitably be conflict between the groups to fight for those resources. Each group in this experiment also did not see the other group as more or even equally favorable as their own. In the end, this competition eventually led to violence and was broken up only through working together (contact theory). This showed that even if you begin unaffiliated with a group, as soon as you find a group that you associate yourself with (become part of in-group), you will take on the qualities and characteristics of the individuals in that group; whatever that group norm is, you inherent as your own.

Source: University of Oklahoma. Institute of Group Relations, and Muzafer Sherif. Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Vol. 10. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange, 1961.

Social identity approach

Self-categorization theory explains the contexts in which an individual perceives a collection of people as a group and the psychological processes that result from an individual perceiving people in terms of a group.[28]

Social identity theory describes how individual identity is shaped by membership in a social group.[29] It also predicts differences in intergroup behavior based on perceived status differences between social groups, the legitimacy and stability of those perceived status differences, and ability to move between social groups.[30][31]

The social identity approach has had a wide-ranging impact on social psychology, influencing theory on topics such as social influence,[32] self-stereotyping,[33] and personality.[34]

Current directions

Early research on intergroup relations focused on understanding the processes behind group interactions and dynamics, constructing theories to explain these processes and related psychological phenomena. Presently, intergroup relations is characterized by researchers applying and refining these theories in the context of modern social issues such as addressing social inequality and reducing discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and religion.[8]

Prejudice reduction

Theories from intergroup relations research have informed many approaches to prejudice reduction. Researchers have focused on developing theoretical frameworks for understanding how to effectively reduce intergroup conflict and prejudice.[35] For example, a recent intervention developed by Patricia Devine and colleagues focuses on training individuals to overcome cognitive biases and reduce implicit bias. The intervention resulted in reduced implicit bias up to two months after the intervention was administered.[36] Other prejudice reduction research has investigated intergroup interaction techniques including cooperative learning (such as Elliot Aronson's "Jigsaw Classroom")[37] and making group identity less salient or a superordinate identity more salient[38][39] in addition to individual techniques such as encouraging perspective-taking with a member of a stigmatized group and building empathy with stigmatized groups.[40][41][42] Another technique that has been studied to reduce prejudice through intergroup relations included sparking interest in another person's culture that was different than their own.[43] A meta-analysis of 515 studies found that there seemed to be a connection between intergroup contact and lower levels of intergroup prejudice.[44]

Meta-analyses of implicit bias reduction studies have shown that many produce limited effects that do not persist outside of a laboratory setting.[45] Some researchers have called for more field research and studies that employ longitudinal designs to test the external validity and durability of existing prejudice reduction techniques, especially workplace diversity programs that may not be informed by empirical research.[46][47] There was also a study conducted on how pluralistic ignorance can affect intergroup contact. Their research showed evidence that both in-groups and out-groups can overestimate the other group's lack of interest in intergroup contact.[48]

Addressing social inequalities

Social scientists have examined phenomena related to social inequality such as poverty, disenfranchisement, and discrimination since the early days of social psychology.[6] However, researchers have only recently begun developing theories on the psychological consequences and impacts of social inequality.[49] Current research on social inequality has explored the psychological effects of racially disparate policing practices on minorities,[50] whites' tendency to underestimate the pain of blacks due to false beliefs in biological differences,[51] how increasing belonging among students from stigmatized backgrounds can boost their GPAs and retention rates,[52] and how social class influences prosocial behavior.[53]

A majority of research on social inequality has principally focused on single categories such as race and gender. Increasingly, more researchers are exploring the effects of how the intersection of identities affect individual and group psychological processes.[54] For example, Judith Harackiewicz and her colleagues examined race and social class as related constructs in a utility-value intervention designed to close the racial achievement gap of underrepresented minority students in introductory STEM college courses.[55]

Other areas of current intergroup relations research include:

Notable figures (1900–1979)

Kurt Lewin

Main page: Kurt LewinKurt Lewin is considered to be one of the founding fathers of social psychology and made major contributions to psychological research. Lewin founded the Research Center for Group Dynamics at MIT in 1945:

"Lewin was interested in the scientific study of the processes that influence individuals in group situations, and the center initially focused on group productivity; communication; social perception; intergroup relations; group membership; leadership and improving the functioning of groups."[66]

Lewin coined the term group dynamics to describe how individuals and groups behave differently depending on their environmental context.[67] In terms of intergroup relations, he applied his formula of B = ƒ(P, E) - behavior is a function of the person and their environment - to group behavior. The theory behind this formula, which emphasizes that context shapes behavior in conjunction with an individual's motivations and beliefs, is a cornerstone of social psychological research.[4] Lewin conducted numerous studies that pioneered the field of organizational psychology, including the Harwood Research studies which showed that group decision-making, leadership training, and self-management techniques could improve employee productivity.[68]

Gordon Allport

The American social psychologist Gordon Allport is considered to be one of the pioneers of the psychological study of intergroup relations. Especially influential is Allport's 1954 book The Nature of Prejudice, which proposed the contact hypothesis and has provided a foundation for research on prejudice and discrimination since the mid-1950s.[15][69] Allport's contributions to the field are still being elaborated upon by psychologists, with one example being the common ingroup identity model developed by Jack Dovidio and Samuel Gaertner in the 1990s.[70] In honor of Allport's contributions to psychology, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues named their annual intergroup relations prize after him.[71]

Beyond his theoretical contributions to the field, Allport mentored many students who would go on to make important contributions of their own to intergroup relations research. These students include Anthony Greenwald, Stanley Milgram, and Thomas Pettigrew.[citation needed]

Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Wood Sherif

Carolyn Wood Sherif, along with Muzafer Sherif and Carl Hovland, developed social judgment theory, a model for self-persuasion that explains how individuals perceive and evaluate new ideas by comparing them with current attitudes.[72] The theory sought to outline how individuals make sense of persuasive messages and how this can in turn influence individual and group beliefs.[73]

Solomon Asch

Solomon Asch's work on conformity in the 1950s also helped shape the study of intergroup relations by exploring how the social pressures of group membership influence individuals to adhere their behavior, attitudes, and beliefs to group norms.[11][8] The results of these studies showed that individuals could yield to group pressure,[74][75] with subsequent studies investigating the conditions under which individuals are more or less likely to conform to the behavior of the group.[76] Asch's research, along with Stanley Milgram's shock experiments, shed light on the psychological processes underlying obedience, conformity, and authority.[8]

Henri Tajfel and John Turner

British psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner developed social identity theory and later self-categorization theory, pioneering the social identity approach in psychology in the 1970s and 80s. Tajfel and Turner were among the first psychologists to study the importance of social group membership and explore how the salience of an individual's group membership determined behavior and beliefs in the group context.[32] Tajfel invented the minimal groups paradigm, an experimental method of arbitrarily assigning to individuals to groups (e.g., by flipping a coin) which showed that even when individuals were divided into arbitrary, meaningless groups, they tended to show favoritism for their own group.[77]

Notable figures (1980–present)

Lee Ross

Susan Fiske

Claude Steele

Anthony Greenwald

Jim Sidanius

Jennifer Richeson

In 2006, Richeson was awarded a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship for using mixed methods, including fMRI, to show that interracial contact reduces performance on inhibitory tasks because individuals engage in self-control behaviors to handle fears of appearing prejudiced (whites) or fears of being a target of prejudice (blacks).[78][79][80]

Jennifer Eberhardt

Eberhardt received a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship in 2014 for her research on the effects of racial bias and their societal consequences.[81] She is a co-founder of Social Psychological Answers to Real-world Questions (SPARQ), a translational research organization that applies psychological findings to address social issues.[82]

Academic journals

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 "Intergroup Relations". International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 2008. http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/intergroup-relations. Retrieved 2018-01-07. 
  2. ↑ Kramer, Roderick M.; Schaffer, Jennifer (2014). Wiley Encyclopedia of Management. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 1–3. doi:10.1002/9781118785317.weom110172. ISBN 9781118785317. 
  3. ↑ "Intergroup relations". The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management. http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631233176_chunk_g978063123536113_ss2-18. Retrieved 2018-01-07. 
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 M., Kassin, Saul (2011). Social psychology. Fein, Steven., Markus, Hazel Rose. (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Wadsworth. ISBN 9780495812401. OCLC 637074045. 
  5. ↑ Aristotle's Politics : critical essays. Kraut, Richard, 1944-, Skultety, Steven.. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 2005. ISBN 978-0742534230. OCLC 59879503. 
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Allport, G. W (1985). "The historical background of social psychology". In Lindzey, G; Aronson, E. The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.p.5
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Crowds in the 21st century : perspectives from contemporary social science. Drury, John., Stott, Clifford John T.. Abingdon, Oxfordshire. 8 June 2015. ISBN 978-1138922914. OCLC 925485880. 
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Handbook of social psychology. Lindzey, Gardner; Aronson, Elliot (3rd ed.). New York: Random House. 1985. ISBN 978-0394350493. OCLC 11112922. 
  9. ↑ Dost-Gozkan, Ayfer (2015). Norms, groups, conflict, and social change : rediscovering Muzafer Sherif's psychology. Dost-Gozkan, Ayfer., Keith, Doga Sonmez.. New Brunswick, New Jersey. ISBN 978-1412855051. OCLC 879600152. 
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Thagard, Paul (2018), Zalta, Edward N., ed., Cognitive Science (Winter 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/cognitive-science/, retrieved 2018-11-25 
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Asch, Solomon E. (1955). "Opinions and Social Pressure". Scientific American 193 (5): 31–35. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31. ISSN 0036-8733. Bibcode: 1955SciAm.193e..31A. 
  12. ↑ Festinger, L. (1957) Cognitive dissonance. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
  13. ↑ Aronson, Elliot; Mills, Judson (1959). "The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 59 (2): 177–181. doi:10.1037/h0047195. ISSN 0096-851X. 
  14. ↑ Kluger, R. (2011). Simple justice: The history of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's struggle for equality. Vintage. [ISBN missing][page needed]
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books
  16. ↑ Pettigrew, Thomas F.; Tropp, Linda R. (2006). "A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory." (in en). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (5): 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 16737372. 
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 King, Martin Luther (1968). "The Role of the Behavioral Scientist in the Civil Rights Movement" (in en). Journal of Social Issues 24 (1): 180–186. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1968.tb01465.x. ISSN 0022-4537. PMID 5643229. 
  18. ↑ Ravindran, Sandeep (2012). "Profile of Lee D. Ross". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (19): 7132–7133. doi:10.1073/pnas.1205295109. PMID 22517739. Bibcode: 2012PNAS..109.7132R. 
  19. ↑ Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A. & Penner, L. A. (2006). The social psychology of pro-social behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  20. ↑ Van Vugt, M., Snyder, M., Tyler, T. & Biel, A. (2000). Cooperation in modern society: Promoting the welfare of communities, states, and organisations p. 245. London: Routledge. [ISBN missing]
  21. ↑ Paluck, E.L. & Green, D.P. (2009). Deference, dissent, and dispute resolution: A field experiment on a mass media intervention in Rwanda. American Political Science Review, 103(4), 622–644.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 J. Richard Hackman (2002). Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances. Harvard Business Press.[ISBN missing][page needed]
  23. ↑ Greenwald, Anthony G.; McGhee, Debbie E.; Schwartz, Jordan L. K. (1998). "Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test.". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (6): 1464–1480. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 9654756. 
  24. ↑ "Web of Science Journal Citation Reports". Web of Science. 2018. Retrieved November 25, 2018.
  25. ↑ Nosek, Brian A.; Banaji, Mahzarin R. (2005). "The Go/No-Go Association Task". Social Cognition 19 (6): 625–666. doi:10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886. ISSN 0278-016X. http://psyarxiv.com/4ed36/. 
  26. ↑ Dixon, John; Durrheim, Kevin; Tredoux, Colin (2005). "Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis". American Psychologist 60 (7): 697–711. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.60.7.697. PMID 16221003. 
  27. ↑ Barlow, F. K.; Paolini, S.; Pedersen, A.; Hornsey, M. J.; Radke, H. R. M.; Harwood, J.; Rubin, M.; Sibley, C. G. (2012). "The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (12): 1629–1643. doi:10.1177/0146167212457953. PMID 22941796. 
  28. ↑ J., Oakes, Penelope (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Haslam, S. Alexander., Turner, John C., 1947-. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. ISBN 978-0631188711. OCLC 28221607. 
  29. ↑ The Social psychology of intergroup relations. Austin, William G., Worchel, Stephen.. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co. 1979. ISBN 978-0818502781. OCLC 4194174. 
  30. ↑ Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). "An integrative theory of intergroup conflict". In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel. The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. pp. 33–47.
  31. ↑ Turner, J. C. (1999). Ellemers, N.; Spears, R.; Doosje, B., eds. "Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories". Social identity. Oxford: Blackwell: 6–34.
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  33. ↑ McGarty, C. (1999). Categorization in social psychology. Sage Publications: London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi.
  34. ↑ Turner, J. C.; Onorato, R. S. (1998). Tyler, T. R.; Kramer, R. M.; John, O. P., eds. "Social identity, personality, and the self-concept: A self-categorization perspective". The Psychology of the Social Self: 11–46.
  35. ↑ Dovidio, John F.; Hewstone, Miles; Glick, Peter; Esses, Victoria M.. "Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination: Theoretical and Empirical Overview". https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/54590_dovido,_chapter_1.pdf. 
  36. ↑ Devine, Patricia G.; Forscher, Patrick S.; Austin, Anthony J.; Cox, William T.L. (2012). "Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (6): 1267–1278. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003. ISSN 0022-1031. PMID 23524616. 
  37. ↑ Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  38. ↑ Ensari, N.; Miller, N. (2001). "Decategorization and the reduction of bias in the crossed categorization paradigm". European Journal of Social Psychology 31 (2): 193–216. doi:10.1002/ejsp.42. 
  39. ↑ Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Psychology Press.
  40. ↑ Galinsky, A. D.; Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). "Perspective-taking: decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 (4): 708–724. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708. PMID 10794375. 
  41. ↑ Esses, V. M.; Dovidio, J. F. (2002). "The role of emotions in determining willingness to engage in intergroup contact". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (9): 1202–1214. doi:10.1177/01461672022812006. 
  42. ↑ Wang, Cynthia S.; Kenneth, Tai; Ku, Gillian; Galinsky, Adam D. (2014-01-22). "Perspective-Taking Increases Willingness to Engage in Intergroup Contact" (in en). PLOS ONE 9 (1): e85681. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085681. ISSN 1932-6203. PMID 24465648. Bibcode: 2014PLoSO...985681W. 
  43. ↑ Brannon, Tiffany N.; Walton, Gregory M. (October 2013). "Enacting Cultural Interests: How Intergroup Contact Reduces Prejudice by Sparking Interest in an Out-Group's Culture" (in en). Psychological Science 24 (10): 1947–1957. doi:10.1177/0956797613481607. ISSN 0956-7976. PMID 23925308. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797613481607. 
  44. ↑ Pettigrew, Thomas F.; Tropp, Linda R. (2006). "A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (5): 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 16737372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751. 
  45. ↑ Forscher, P. S., Lai, C., Axt, J., Ebersole, C. R., Herman, M., Devine, P. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2016). A meta-analysis of change in implicit bias.
  46. ↑ Paluck, Elizabeth Levy; Green, Donald P. (2009). "Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice" (in en). Annual Review of Psychology 60 (1): 339–367. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607. ISSN 0066-4308. PMID 18851685. 
  47. ↑ Paluck, E. L. (2006). "Diversity training and intergroup contact: A call to action research". Journal of Social Issues 62 (3): 577–595. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00474.x. 
  48. ↑ Shelton, J. Nicole; Richeson, Jennifer A. (2005). "Intergroup Contact and Pluralistic Ignorance." (in en). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 (1): 91–107. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.91. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 15631577. http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.91. 
  49. ↑ Kraus, M. W.; Stephens, N. M. (2012). "A Road Map for an Emerging Psychology of Social Class". Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6 (9): 642–656. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00453.x. 
  50. ↑ Voigt, R.; Camp, N. P.; Prabhakaran, V.; Hamilton, W. L.; Hetey, R. C.; Griffiths, C. M.; Eberhardt, J. L. (2017). "Language from police body camera footage shows racial disparities in officer respect". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (25): 6521–6526. doi:10.1073/pnas.1702413114. PMID 28584085. Bibcode: 2017PNAS..114.6521V. 
  51. ↑ Hoffman, K. M.; Trawalter, S.; Axt, J. R.; Oliver, M. N. (2016). "Racial bias in pain assessment and treatment recommendations, and false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (16): 4296–4301. doi:10.1073/pnas.1516047113. PMID 27044069. Bibcode: 2016PNAS..113.4296H. 
  52. ↑ Walton, G. M.; Cohen, G. L. (2011). "A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students". Science 331 (6023): 1447–1451. doi:10.1126/science.1198364. PMID 21415354. Bibcode: 2011Sci...331.1447W. 
  53. ↑ Piff, Paul K.; Kraus, Michael W.; Côté, Stéphane; Cheng, Bonnie Hayden; Keltner, Dacher (2010). "Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior." (in en). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99 (5): 771–784. doi:10.1037/a0020092. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 20649364. 
  54. ↑ Moore‐Berg, S. L., & Karpinski, A. (2018). An intersectional approach to understanding how race and social class affect intergroup processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, e12426.
  55. ↑ Harackiewicz, J. M.; Canning, E. A.; Tibbetts, Y.; Priniski, S. J.; Hyde, J. S. (2016). "Closing achievement gaps with a utility-value intervention: Disentangling race and social class". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 111 (5): 745–765. doi:10.1037/pspp0000075. PMID 26524001. 
  56. ↑ Knowles, E. D.; Lowery, B. S.; Chow, R. M.; Unzueta, M. M. (2014). "Deny, distance, or dismantle? How white Americans manage a privileged identity". Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 (6): 594–609. doi:10.1177/1745691614554658. PMID 26186110. 
  57. ↑ Willer, R., Feinberg, M., & Wetts, R. (2016). Threats to racial status promote Tea Party support among White Americans.
  58. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named :13
  59. ↑ Chrobot-Mason, D.; Thomas, K. M. (2002). "Minority employees in majority organizations: The intersection of individual and organizational racial identity in the workplace". Human Resource Development Review 1 (3): 323–344. doi:10.1177/1534484302013004. 
  60. ↑ Jost, J. T.; Nosek, B. A.; Gosling, S. D. (2008). "Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology". Perspectives on Psychological Science 3 (2): 126–136. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00070.x. PMID 26158879. 
  61. ↑ Van Boven, L.; Judd, C. M.; Sherman, D. K. (2012). "Political polarization projection: Social projection of partisan attitude extremity and attitudinal processes". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103 (1): 84–100. doi:10.1037/a0028145. PMID 22545744. 
  62. ↑ Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2005). Understanding intercultural communication. New York: Oxford University Press.
  63. ↑ Riemer, H.; Shavitt, S.; Koo, M.; Markus, H. R. (2014). "Preferences don't have to be personal: Expanding attitude theorizing with a cross-cultural perspective". Psychological Review 121 (4): 619–648. doi:10.1037/a0037666. PMID 25347311. 
  64. ↑ Kim, Junhyoung (January 2012). "Exploring the Experience of Intergroup Contact and the Value of Recreation Activities in Facilitating Positive Intergroup Interactions of Immigrants" (in en). Leisure Sciences 34 (1): 72–87. doi:10.1080/01490400.2012.633856. ISSN 0149-0400. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01490400.2012.633856. 
  65. ↑ Laar, Colette Van; Levin, Shana; Sinclair, Stacey; Sidanius, Jim (2005-07-01). "The effect of university roommate contact on ethnic attitudes and behavior" (in en). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 41 (4): 329–345. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.08.002. ISSN 0022-1031. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103104001039. 
  66. ↑ "Research Center for Group Dynamics" (in en). http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/. 
  67. ↑ Forsyth, Donelson R. (2014). Group dynamics (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. ISBN 9781133956532. OCLC 842246442. 
  68. ↑ van Elteren, V. (1993). "From Emancipating To Domesticating the Workers: Lewinian social psychology and the study of the work process till 1947". In Stam, H.J.; Mos, L.P.; Thorngate, W.; et al. Recent Trends in Theoretical Psychology. Springer-Verlag. pp. 341–351.
  69. ↑ Katz, Irwin (1991). ""Gordon Allport's "The Nature of Prejudice". Political Psychology 12 (1): 125–157. doi:10.2307/3791349. 
  70. ↑ Gaertner, S. L.; Dovidio, J. F.; Anastasio, P. A.; Bachman, B. A.; Rust, M. C. (1993). "The Common Ingroup Identity Model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup Bias". European Review of Social Psychology 4: 1–26. doi:10.1080/14792779343000004. 
  71. ↑ "SPSSI | Allport Award". https://www.spssi.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=715. 
  72. ↑ Hovland, Carl I.; Sherif, Muzafer (1980). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Westport: Greenwood. ISBN:0313224382.
  73. ↑ Daniel O'Keefe. "Social Judgement Theory". Persuasion: Theory and Research. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016.
  74. ↑ Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men(pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh, PA:Carnegie Press.
  75. ↑ Asch, S.E. (1955). "Opinions and social pressure". Scientific American 193 (5): 31–35. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31. Bibcode: 1955SciAm.193e..31A. 
  76. ↑ Asch, S.E. (1956). "Studies of independence and conformity. A minority of one against a unanimous majority". Psychological Monographs 70 (9): 1–70. doi:10.1037/h0093718. 
  77. ↑ Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination.
  78. ↑ "Jennifer Richeson - MacArthur Foundation". https://www.macfound.org/fellows/786/. 
  79. ↑ Richeson, J. A.; Shelton, J. N. (2003). "When prejudice does not pay: Effects of interracial contact on executive function". Psychological Science 14 (3): 287–290. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.03437. PMID 12741756. 
  80. ↑ Richeson, J. A.; Trawalter, S.; Shelton, J. N. (2005). "African Americans' implicit racial attitudes and the depletion of executive function after interracial interactions". Social Cognition 23 (4): 336–352. doi:10.1521/soco.2005.23.4.336. 
  81. ↑ "Jennifer L. Eberhardt - MacArthur Foundation" (in en). https://www.macfound.org/fellows/913/. 
  82. ↑ "SPARQ | Social Psychological Answers to Real-world Questions" (in en). http://sparq.stanford.edu/. 

External links



Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Social:Intergroup_relations&oldid=3301054"