DepDiscontent
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- Summer camps
- Sherif 1966 - set out RCT; phase 1, camp wide games and make friends 2, split up and isolate 2, regroup for intergroup competitions - led to ig bias and solidarity and OG compo generalised to outside games - then added superordinate goals
- Singer 1981
- People tend to make comparisons with those close at hand and available for comparison
- Gibbons 1985
- Mild mental retards - lower self estemm because come into more contact with and identify more with 'normals' then severely retarded
- 5 options when faced with relative dep
- Taylor et al 1987 - said when faced with relative dep - either dont act, act as indi either norm or non-norm or act collectively either norm or non-norm - individual mobalisation always the first choice
- Stigma theory
- Crosby and Major 1989 - theory suggests that those deprived should have low self esteem but dont - could be that do s-e saving techniques such as de-emphasising the importance of certain attributes, or comparing to a relatively deprived OG or as self protection comparing to IG members who more likely to be better off then - another two reasons to compare to IG is proximity esp as stigma g can be segregated - and similarity that is - compare to similar because more accurate self-appraisal if compare to someone similar on relevant attributes
- Wright et al 1990
- did a study where person was in group where won $10 on lottery but other g won $100 altered permability of group boundaries even if token permeability of 2% still lessened willingness to take part in collective action
- Sikhs and Turks
- Zagefka and Brown 2005/6 - study where asked if prefer to compare to IG and if better of then IG - preffered to compare to IG and felt better off - plus found that Deprivation can lead to lowered self-esteem
- Lesbians
- Crosby et al - interviewed 15 out lesbians, arguing that they would be more politicised and higher gender ID therefore less likely to fall foul of denial of personal deprivation - found still did even if felt state was worse of - but less so more id
- women in factory
- Crosby et al 1982 - first set out person- group discrep where acknowledge group is deprived but not feel pers dep - pluralistic ignorance - women in factory where earned up to 50% less then male did just that
- Crosby 1984
- set out emo reasons for pers-group discrep - 1st is emo aversive to see self as potential victim, threat to JWB, 2nd is emo aversive to see coworkers and supervisors as less then admirable 3rd threat to s-e to see self as just normal, nothin special
- MBA's
- Ford 1988- found denial of pers disadvantage in minority MBA's
- Crosby et al 1989
- found that students from a working class background recognised their dep in past but denied their disadv in the future as felt had better chance then others
- Nagata and Crosby 1991
- in collectivist soc (us-japanese) les p-g d therefore not a universal immutable thing
- Crosby et al 1993
- set out p-g d emo and cog reasons
- Twiss et al 1989
- found that female stu were less able to spot inequality if the info was presented equntially then together therefore a cog reason for not spotting discrim to self
- Moghaddam et al 1997
- found p-g d for positive and negative in distribution of priv and discrim therefore maybe not mo based bias but dep on comparisongroup - indi - interp and group = interg
- Hafer and Olson 1993
- q about views on work then 1 mnth later give beh q - to see how much career dev activites and collective action involved in - indi dep corr. with job leave, career dev thru qual or training and collective dep corr. with affirmative action and strike involvement - and neg corr. with career dev
- Grant and Brown 1995
- most studies that look at link of coll action and group id are corr. but got discussion groups and said one group only gets $4 bcos nega eval by other group - led to higher dislike of OG, IG bias and more willing to get involved incoll action
- Scots
- Abrams 1996 - scots with high scot id and fraternalistic rela dep to english showed more support to snp
- Kesler et al 2000
- those in disadvantaged groups report less discrim at indi level
- klanderman 1997
- highest risk for coll action is those involved if fail - therefore to turn attitudes into beh. need to meet certain req. need to feel will suceed, have no ostacles, value outcome, sympathise with cause, no what to do and have us vs them OG atitude
- Runciman 1966
- said deprivation was relative - depend on you comparison group - made distinction of egoistic and fraternalistic deprivation - study of white collar workers who felt aggreived at perceived prosperity of blue collar workers
- Davis 1969
- formalised RDT as the perceived discrepancy of actual/attained and expected/ entitled - said that a relative period of prosperity followed by a sttep recession - e.g. ruski and french revo, black power, rise of nazi party or civil war
- Venneman and pettigrew 1972
- whites who felt that white as a group were deprived compared to blacks held more negative OG attitudes
- Miller et al 1977
- found little evidence for the j-curve hypothesis - said that relative downturn of black fortune in 50's was to early to explain civil rights movement in 60's
- Hindus and Muslims
- Tripathi and Srivastava 1981 - muslims (who used to be ruling classes) who felt most deprived showed highest amount of negative attitudes to hindus
- political and social attitudes
- taylor 1982 - found little evidence that current expectations were based on newly past events - based on interviews about poli and soc attitudes
- Francophile
- Guimond and Dube-simond 1983- found that militant francophiles in montreal felt more frustrated and acute dissatisfaction if compared waged between franco and anglophones then egoistically
- Martin et al 1984
- role play where w imagine gets payed equal or less to m on same rank - altered size of ineq and also chances of success in coll action and found willingness to take part in coll act dep on level of ineq and mostly chances of success
- Australians
- walker and mann 1987 - unemployed ozzies were showed higher likelihood to collective action if felt frat deprived and more prone to stress if egoistically deprived
- orhtodox and moderate jews
- struich and schwartz 1989 - found that two groups would take a more agg stance if perceived conflict in interests which was mediated by strength of id as group