Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 9 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Common Ingroup Identity | Dovidio | Haslam I 158 Common Ingroup Identity/Gaertner/Dovidio: the common ingroup identity approach to prejudice reduction [was] advanced by Samuel Gaertner and John Dovidio (e.g., Gaertner et al., 1993(1), 2000(2). In this approach, cognitive re-categorization of ‘us’ and ‘them’ into ‘all of us’ is argued to be the basis for reducing prejudice. This, indeed, was precisely the process that Sherif believed occurred in the context of intergroup cooperation for a superordinate goal in Phase 3 of his studies (e.g., see Sherif, 1951(3): 421), >Robbers Cave Experiment/Sherif, >Group behavior/Sherif, >Social groups/Sherif. Re-categorization/GaertnerVsSherif/DovidioVsSherif: however, there are definite differences between Sherif’s analysis and the common ingroup identity model. For example, a variety of factors are assumed to lead to this cognitive re-categorization rather than just successful cooperation for a superordinate goal. The common ingroup identity model also recognizes that cognitive re-categorization processes may be different for members of minority and majority groups (e.g., Dovidio et al., 2007(4)), a factor not considered by Sherif and his colleagues. 1. Gaertner, S.L., Dovidio, J.F., Anastasio, P.A., Bachman, B.A. and Rust, M.C. (1993) ‘The common ingroup identity model: Recategorisation and the reduction of intergroup bias’, European Review of Social Psychology, 4: 1–26. 2. Gaertner, S.L., Dovidio, J.F., Banker, B.S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K.M. and McGlynn, E.A. (2000) ‘Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation’, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 4: 98–114. 3. Sherif, M. (1951) ‘A preliminary experimental study of inter-group relations’, in J.H. Rohrer and M. Sherif (eds), Social Psychology at the Crossroads. New York: Harper & Row. pp. 388–424. 2. Sherif, M., White, B.J. and Harvey, O.J. (1955) ‘Status in experimentally produced groups’, American Journal of Sociology, 60: 370–9. 4. Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L. and Saguy, T. (2007) ‘Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity’, European Review of Social Psychology, 18: 296–330. 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 S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
| Common Ingroup Identity | Gaertner | Haslam I 158 Common Ingroup Identity/Gaertner/Dovidio: the common ingroup identity approach to prejudice reduction [was] advanced by Samuel Gaertner and John Dovidio (e.g., Gaertner et al., 1993(1), 2000(2). In this approach, cognitive re-categorization of ‘us’ and ‘them’ into ‘all of us’ is argued to be the basis for reducing prejudice. This, indeed, was precisely the process that Sherif believed occurred in the context of intergroup cooperation for a superordinate goal in Phase 3 of his studies (e.g., see Sherif, 1951(3): 421), >Robbers Cave Experiment/Sherif, >Group behavior/Sherif, >Social groups/Sherif. Re-categorization/GaertnerVsSherif/DovidioVsSherif: however, there are definite differences between Sherif’s analysis and the common ingroup identity model. For example, a variety of factors are assumed to lead to this cognitive re-categorization rather than just successful cooperation for a superordinate goal. The common ingroup identity model also recognizes that cognitive re-categorization processes may be different for members of minority and majority groups (e.g., Dovidio et al., 2007(4)), a factor not considered by Sherif and his colleagues. 1. Gaertner, S.L., Dovidio, J.F., Anastasio, P.A., Bachman, B.A. and Rust, M.C. (1993) ‘The common ingroup identity model: Recategorisation and the reduction of intergroup bias’, European Review of Social Psychology, 4: 1–26. 2. Gaertner, S.L., Dovidio, J.F., Banker, B.S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K.M. and McGlynn, E.A. (2000) ‘Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation’, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 4: 98–114. 3. Sherif, M. (1951) ‘A preliminary experimental study of inter-group relations’, in J.H. Rohrer and M. Sherif (eds), Social Psychology at the Crossroads. New York: Harper & Row. pp. 388–424. 2. Sherif, M., White, B.J. and Harvey, O.J. (1955) ‘Status in experimentally produced groups’, American Journal of Sociology, 60: 370–9. 4. Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L. and Saguy, T. (2007) ‘Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity’, European Review of Social Psychology, 18: 296–330. 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 S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
| Competition | Sherif | Haslam I 156 Competition/cooperation/Sherif: The evidence from the Boys’ Camp studies (>Robbers Cave Experiment/Sherif, Sherif et al. 1969(1)) clearly shows that competition leads to increased intergroup discrimination, and that cooperation towards superordinate goals leads to a reduction in intergroup discrimination. Nevertheless, Sherif and his colleagues report much anecdotal evidence to suggest (a) that the boys showed ingroup favouring attitudes before the formal introduction of competition (see Sherif, 1966(2): 80; Sherif and Sherif, 1969(1): 239); and (b) that, although cooperation towards superordinate goals reduced ingroup favouritism, it did not eradicate it completely. VsSherif: This means that other social-psychological processes are clearly at play, ones that Sherif and his colleagues failed to address directly. 1. Sherif, M. and Sherif, C.W. (1969) Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Row. 2. Sherif, M. (1966) In Common Predicament: Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. 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 Class studies. London: Sage Publications |
Haslam I S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
| Cooperation | Sherif | Haslam I 156 Competition/cooperation/Sherif: The evidence from the Boys’ Camp studies (>Robbers Cave Experiment/Sherif, Sherif et al. 1969(1)) clearly shows that competition leads to increased intergroup discrimination, and that cooperation towards superordinate goals leads to a reduction in intergroup discrimination. Nevertheless, Sherif and his colleagues report much anecdotal evidence to suggest (a) that the boys showed ingroup favouring attitudes before the formal introduction of competition (see Sherif, 1966(2): 80; Sherif and Sherif, 1969(1): 239); and (b) that, although cooperation towards superordinate goals reduced ingroup favouritism, it did not eradicate it completely. VsSherif: This means that other social-psychological processes are clearly at play, ones that Sherif and his colleagues failed to address directly. 1. Sherif, M. and Sherif, C.W. (1969) Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Row. 2. Sherif, M. (1966) In Common Predicament: Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. 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 Class studies. London: Sage Publications |
Haslam I S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
| Group Behavior | Sherif | Haslam I 146 Group behavior/Sherif: to understand intergroup phenomena (i.e., the ways that groups behave towards each other) [Sherif] believed that it was critical to take an intergroup approach. To be sure, being a psychologist, he saw the individual’s ‘perception of the social world’, coupled with the individual’s ‘learning about it’ and appraisals and evaluations of it, as a key focus of his analysis (Sherif and Sherif, 1969(1): 8). >Individuals/Sherif. Haslam I 147 Sherif: the progress and pattern of intergroup behaviour represent[s] normal social-psychological functioning, and is neither ‘irrational’ (Sherif and Sherif, 1969(1): 269), nor a ‘problem of deviate behaviour’ (Sherif et al., 1961(2): 198). VsSherif: it can sometimes appear as if Sherif took a very one-sided approach to intergroup relations. SherifVsVs:/Platow/Hunter: [Sherif et al.] did all they could in their Boys’ Camp studies (>Robbers Camp study/Sherif) to show that biological and personality constructs could not account for their findings. To achieve that, [they] worked hard to demonstrate the power of the social context in shaping both intragroup and intergroup attitudes and behaviours. But [their] goal was never to discard completely other potential factors. >Robbers Camp Study/Sherif. Haslam I 148 Intergroup relations: [for Sherif et al.] intergroup relations were conceptualized as ‘functional relationships between two or more groups … and their respective members’ (Sherif and Sherif, 1969(1): 223). Embedded here, again, is the basic premise that these relations entail actual, material interactions. Moreover, these relationships occur both between individual group members and between the groups as entities. Interactions: a) between people within at least two separate groups b) between groups. Method/Sherif: three experimental phases 1) ingroup formation 2) intergroup conflict 3) reduction of intergroup conflict. >Robbers Cave Experiment/Sherif. Haslam I 154 Group behavior/boys’ camp studies/Robbers Cave Experiment/Sherif/psychological theories: the studies 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. 1. Sherif, M. and Sherif, C.W. (1969) Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Row. 2. Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W.R. and Sherif, C.W. (1961) Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: Institute of Group Relations, University of Oklahoma. 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 Class studies. London: Sage Publications |
Haslam I S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
| Method | Sherif | Haslam I 147 Method/Sherif: Sherif knowingly adopted a model of intergroup relations based upon small-group interactions (Sherif, 1951)(1). At the same time, however, by moving out of the laboratory and choosing to conduct intensive field experiments, Sherif was ultimately able to test hypotheses and make inferences that extended well beyond the scope of nearly all social-psychological experimentation prior to, and since, his groundbreaking work. >Robbers Camp Study/Sherif. The first challenge that Sherif and colleagues faced was the translation of their broad conceptual notions of groups and intergroup relations into specific experimental practices. Sherif began the empirical work by attempting to define precisely the ‘minimal essential properties of groups’ (Sherif et al., 1955(2): 371). Note that the very claim that groups have ‘properties’ reveals Sherif’s belief that groups had a material reality. Haslam I 148 Sherif 1969(3): 223: Interactions: a) between people within at least two separate groups b) between groups. Method/Sherif: three experimental phases 1) ingroup formation 2) intergroup conflict 3) reduction of intergroup conflict. >Robbers Cave Experiment/Sherif. Each study incorporated slightly different variants of these phases, and Experiment 2 did not involve the third phase. In each study, the participants were boys who were naïve to the experimental hypotheses and, in fact, to the fact that they were taking part in an experiment at all. Instead, they believed they were attending a normal summer camp. Participants: In selecting participants, Sherif and his colleagues actively worked to ensure ‘homogeneity of subjects as to sociocultural and personal backgrounds’ (Sherif et al., 1961(4): 59). (…) this meant that if they ultimately came to behave viciously towards each other, this could not be attributed to any inherent deficiencies in their character or background. Haslam I 155 1. VsSherif: One common criticism of Sherif’s work – levelled by both biographers and critical social psychologists (e.g., Brannigan, 2006(5); Grandberg and Sarup, 1992(6)) – is that, for him and his colleagues, hypothesis testing typically came rather late in the research process. That is, following immersion in a given problem the researchers would develop insights about the nature of the problem, which they would then seek to confirm empirically. As a result, Sherif and his colleagues have been criticized for seeking to devise experiments that would verify (rather than test) their hypotheses (e.g., see Sherif, 1948(7): 357). For epistemological reasons, this type of approach will tend to have high external validity, but it is not well suited to the discovery of new insights (Cherry, 1995(8)). Haslam I 156 2. VsSherif: In relation to theory, several authors (e.g., Brewer and Brown, 1998(9); Turner, 1975(10)) have also stressed that Sherif and his colleagues failed to distinguish between competition based on real, material competition and more symbolic competition (e.g., based on values, prestige, social status). 3. VsSherif: one of the major strengths of Sherif’s research – its location in the field (as opposed to laboratory) – is also one of its biggest weaknesses. Because there were so many variables interacting in the field experiments (e.g., mutual frustration, ingroup bullying, intergroup attribution, the anticipation of competition, the consequences of winning or losing), it remains almost impossible to discern specifically what it was about any given situation that led to the observed effects (Dion, 1979(11); Rabbie, 1982(12); Platow and Hunter, 2001(13)). 1. Sherif, M. (1951) ‘A preliminary experimental study of inter-group relations’, in J.H. Rohrer and M. Sherif (eds), Social Psychology at the Crossroads. New York: Harper & Row. pp. 388–424. 2. Sherif, M., White, B.J. and Harvey, O.J. (1955) ‘Status in experimentally produced groups’, American Journal of Sociology, 60: 370–9. 3. Sherif, M. and Sherif, C.W. (1969) Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Row. 4. Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W.R. and Sherif, C.W. (1961) Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: Institute of Group Relations, University of Oklahoma. 5. Brannigan, A. (2006) Introduction to the Aldine Translation Edition of M. Sherif: Social Interaction: Processes and Products. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 6. Grandberg, D. and Sarup, G. (1992) ‘Muzafer Sherif: Portrait of a passionate intellectual’, in D. Grandberg and G. Sarup (eds), Social Judgment and Intergroup Relations: Essays in Honor of Muzafer Sherif. New York. Springer-Verlag. pp. 3–54. 7. Sherif, M. (1948) An Outline of Social Psychology. New York: Harper. 8-Cherry, F. (1995) The ‘Stubborn Particulars’ of Social Psychology: Essays on the Research Process. London: Routledge. 9. Brewer, M.B. and Brown, R.J. (1998) ‘Intergroup relations’, in D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske and G. Lindzey (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 554–94. 10.Turner, J.C. (1975) ‘Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 5: 1–34. 11Dion, K.L. (1979) ‘Intergroup conflict and intragroup cohesiveness’, in S. Worchel and W.G. Austin (eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. pp. 33–47. 12. Rabbie, J.M. (1982) ‘The effects of intergroup competition on intragroup and intergroup relationships’, in V.J. Derlega and J. Grzelak (eds), Cooperation and Helping Behaviour: Theories and Research. New York: Academic Press. pp. 123–49. 13. Platow, M.J. and Hunter, J.A. (2001) ‘Realistic intergroup conflict: Prejudice, power, and protest’, in M. Augoustinos and K.J. Reynolds (eds), Understanding the Psychology of Prejudice and Racism. London: Sage. pp. 195–212. 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 S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
| Minimal Group | Tajfel | Haslam I 164 Minimal group/Tajfel: Extending the earlier work of Sherif (>Robbers Cave Experiment/Sherif, >Group behavior/Sherif, >Social Groups/Sherif, [Taifel’s] minimal group studies were designed to reduce the group or category to its most minimal elements and then establish at what point conflict and discrimination between groups would rear their heads. As it turned out, the intergroup discrimination arising from the highly recognizable phenomenon of gangs of boys fighting over territory and resources also arose when all obvious features that might produce such conflict (e.g., a history of antagonism, a scarcity of resources) were stripped away. Indeed, by this means the studies provided striking evidence that boys (and later adults) would discriminate in favour of their own group in the absence of any visible signs of the groups themselves – a phenomenon typically referred to as minimal ingroup bias. Def Minimal ingroup bias: boys (and later adults) would discriminate in favour of their own group in the absence of any visible signs of the groups themselves. >Social identity theory/Tajfel. Predecessors: Sherifs boys’ camp studies (Sherif and Sherif (1967(1)) showed that tensions arise between groups when they have to compete for scarce resources. >Robbers Cave Experiment/Sherif. TajfelVsSherif: as set out in the influential 1971 (Tajfel 1971)(2) paper in which Tajfel and his colleagues presented the findings of the first minimal group studies, two related themes seemed to motivate Tajfel’s quest to go beyond Sherif’s ideas. First, he emphasized the importance of the social context in which behaviour was embedded and acquired meaning. Haslam I 165 Prejudice/Tajfel: The articulation of an individual’s social world in terms of its categorization in groups becomes a guide for his [or her] conduct in situations to which some criterion of intergroup division can be meaningfully applied. (Meaningful need not be ‘rational’.) An undifferentiated environment makes very little sense and provides no guidelines for action … . Whenever … some form of intergroup categorization can be used it will give order and coherence to the social situation. >Group behavior/Tajfel. Haslam I 167 Experiment 1 (see >Method/Tajfel) when allocation involved Haslam I 168 two ingroup or two outgroup members, participants displayed an overwhelming preference for a strategy of fairness. However, when it came to differential matrices that involved rewarding an ingroup versus an outgroup member, they were now more discriminatory in favour of the ingroup (although the modal response was still for fairness). In other words, these matrices produced evidence of significant ingroup bias. Moreover, participants’ support for this strategy did not change when the categorization procedure was given a value connotation that might justify discrimination (…). Experiment 2: Experiment 2 was designed to distinguish further between the different reward strategies participants were using. The clear result was that [the „Maximum Difference“ strategy; see >Method/Tajfel exerted a significant pull when opposed to the other strategies. (…) the differentiation matrices provide consistent evidence of ingroup favouritism and maximum difference strategies. >Method/Tajfel. Interpretation of the results: Initially, Tajfel and his colleagues interpreted [the support for the maximum difference strategy (biggest positive difference between ingroup and outgroup points in favor of the ingroup)] as supporting a generic social norm to discriminate. Haslam I 169] VsTajfel: many subsequent accounts interpreted this as an example of outgroup derogation (because it harms the outgroup at the expense of benefiting the ingroup). Problem/Spears/Otten: in the MD strategy, positive differentiation and derogation are confounded, and this problem has never adequately been addressed (and is rarely if ever discussed). Alternative Interpretations/Tajfel: (Tajfel et al. 1971)(2): (a) demand characteristics (the idea that participants were responding to cues that conveyed the experimenter’s hypothesis), (b) expectations of reciprocity, and (c) anticipation of future interaction. Ad (a): Lindsay St Claire and John Turner (1982)(3) found that if people were asked to role-play being members of the groups (rather than being categorized themselves) and then complete the matrices accordingly they did not show the same degree of ingroup bias (MD and MIP) but tended to predict fairness. Ad (b): Tajfel and colleagues admitted that they had no data that spoke to this issue and hence this explanation could not easily be ruled out. Ad (c): Tajfel proposed that the most rational strategy – given that they did not know who was in ‘their’ group – was to opt for an MJP (maximum joint points) strategy. However, (…) this strategy held little appeal. Haslam I 170 Generic norm explanation: this explanation quickly fell from favour because of the potential circularity of a normative account: if there is a competitive norm (e.g., among participants from western countries), where does it come from and what explains that? For a solution: see >Social identity theory/Tajfel. Haslam I 171 1. Problem: in the literature Tajfel’s minimal group studies are often used to warrant the conclusion that discrimination is pervasive and inevitable ((s) which is not explicitly claimed by Tajfel and Turner). 2. Problem: it is the question, whether the portrayal of Tajfel’s and Turner’s studies is always accurate: A. Social dominance theory: here evidence for ingroup favouritism is used to argue that intergroup discrimination is a generic feature of many intergroup relations (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999)(4). B. System justification theory: (Jost and Banaji, 1994)(5): here evidence for ingroup favouritism Haslam I 172 is used to suggest that groups (especially those with high-status) often seek to justify their position through displays of bias towards others. >Minimal group/Psychological theories. 1. Sherif, M. (1967) Group Conflict and Co-operation: Their Social Psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 2. Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Billig, M.G. and Bundy, R.F. (1971) ‘Social categorization and intergroup behaviour’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 1: 149–77. 3. St Claire, L. and Turner, J.C. (1982) ‘The role of demand characteristics in the social categorization paradigm’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 12: 307–14. 4. Sidanius, J. and Pratto, F. (1999) Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press. 5. Jost, J.T. and Banaji, M.R. (1994) ‘The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 33: 1–27. 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 |
Haslam I S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
| Robbers Cave Experiment | Psychological Theories | Haslam I 153 Robbers Cave Experiment/Sherif/Psychological theories: Sherif and his colleagues were able to create psychologically meaningful groups (e.g., with a history, norms and internal status relations) and to demonstrate systematically the profound impact that variations in relationships both within and between the groups had on psychology and behaviour. Tajfel: behaviour. In so doing, they were ‘able to recreate many phenomena … usually associated with long-term complex social and historical developments’ (Tajfel, 1978(1): 435). Conclusions from the experiments (Sherif and Sherif 1969(2): A. Groups: have a material reality including roles and status relationships Relationships: will vary dynamically with the nature of intragroup members identifying with the group Groups: have a psychological validity, with members identifying with the group Intergroup attitudes: are psychological meaningful outcomes of the nature of intergroup relations Competition: intergroup competition for limited resources causes negative intergroup impressions Cooperation: between groups for compelling superordinate goals will have a cumulative effect in reducing intergroup hostility Contact: intergroup contact alone ist not sufficient to reduce intergroup hostility. Haslam I 154 TraditionVsSherif: psychological theories prior to Sherif’s studies had assumed that groups in fact do not exist. E. g., Groups/Allport: Thesis: the only material reality lies at the level of the individual (Allport 1924)(3). SherifVsAllport/SherifVsTradition: the Boys’ Camp studies demonstrated unequivocally the presence and importance of social-psychological variables that exist only at the conceptual level of the group. >Robbers Cave Experiment/Sherif, >Social groups/Sherif. B. Members: groups have substantive psychological meaning and significance for their members. The boys in the studies identified strongly with their groups. These groups were psychologically real, engaging and self-defining. Haslam I 157 (…) since Sherif developed his theoretical analysis, researchers have gone on to clarify its ability to explain such things as rapid changes in the onset and dissipation of intergroup discrimination, and the process by which ingroup love evolves into outgroup hate (Brewer, 1999(4); Brown et al., 1986(5); Struch and Schwartz, 1989(6)). >M. Sherif, >H. Taifel, >G. Allport, >Group behavior, >Group cohesion, >Groupthink, >Social relations, >Social dominance, >Social groups, >Social identity, >Social competence, >Social status, >Social behavior, >Competition, >Leadership. 1. Tajfel, H. (ed.) (1978) Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press. 2. Sherif, M. and Sherif, C.W. (1969) Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Row. 3. Allport, F.H. (1924) ‘The group fallacy in relation to social science’, Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology, 19: 60–73. 4. Brewer, M.B. (1999) ‘The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?’, Journal of Social Issues, 55: 429–44. 5. Brown, R.J., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G. and Williams, J.A. (1986) ‘Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization’, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59: 273–86. 6. Struch, N. and Schwartz, S.H. (1989) ‘Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 364–73. 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 S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
| Social Identity | Sherif | Haslam I 157 Social identitySherif: The theoretical perspectives that are most directly indebted to Sherif and his colleagues are those that have, like him, eschewed an individualistic approach to intergroup relations: in particular, social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979)(1) and self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987(2). (…) there are fundamental differences between Sherif’s analysis and the social identity approach (>Social identity theory/Tajfel). Sherif: (Sherif et al. 1961(3), 1969(4)) focused on the analysis of ‘structural properties of group interaction and formation, group products … and the reciprocal functional relationships between groups and individual members’ (Sherif and Cantril, 1947(5): 282). >Social groups/Sherif, >Group behavior/Sherif, >Robbers Cave experiment/Sherif. TajfelVsSherif: Analyses of these relationships, however, are less important in social identity analyses of intergroup behaviour – in part, as a result of Henri Tajfel’s own minimal group studies which established that group-based behaviour could emerge in the absence of intragroup interdependence, structure and roles. >Social identity theory/Tajfel. 1. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979) ‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict’, in W.G. Austin and S. Worchel (eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. pp. 33–48. 2. Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S. and Wetherell, M.S. (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 3. Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W.R. and Sherif, C.W. (1961) Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: Institute of Group Relations, University of Oklahoma. 4 .Sherif, M. and Sherif, C.W. (1969) Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Row. 5. Sherif, M. and Cantril, H. (1947) The Psychology of Ego-involvements. New York: Wiley. 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 S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
| |||
No results. Please choose an author or concept or try a different keyword-search.