SIT
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- rabbie and horowitz 1969
- even when not interdep goals still conflict
- Rabbie and debrey 1971
- even when explicit coop group interaction still some ethnocentrism
- first MGP
- Tajfel and Turner 1971 - did MGP where just on klee and kadansky preference - even when no future, past to group couldnt id and ruled out self interest the children still showed fair but ig bias
- Even more minimal
- Billig and Tajfel 1973 - did MGP ut just by x/y group therefore not think of as interp simi - found same findings
- Brown 1978
- if worse on in one comparison make new, e.g. crap hut look at garden and also in factory were willing to take 2 pay cut for 1 over og
- Nurses
- Van Knippenberg and Van Oers 1984 - psy and aca nurses agreed with og bias for theo and interp skills but showed 2x more ig bias
- Lemyre and Smith 1986
- if were allowed to make interg reward, none, or 2 2 og or ig only interg reward increased s-e
- Mummendy et al 1999
- more perm = less id, more legit = less indi mob and more rela dep = more compo orient to og
- Gay
- Stuemer and Smith 2004 - gays who id'd as gay group and as activist mo likely to engage in collectivist action
- Iraq
- mass et al - italian reports of iraq became less abstract after conflict
- horse race
- maas et al 1989 - italian towns did race, shown cartoon and showed more abstract for pos of ig and neg of og and vice versa for concrete when choose descript or give descript - suggests that maintain positive view of ig and distinct from og thru lang
- jews and basketball
- maas et al 1994 - reports of an anti-sem protest in italy at bbal match between italy and isreal - used abstract descriptors - was a jewish paper
- expectations only
- maas et al 1995 - found that when talk about southern and northern italians the abstract extended to expected traits regardless of valence - suggests expect - even at pers level, but maybe in more compo situ
- Maas et al 1996
- asked wild game hunters and enviro to read etter from other g which was either threat or concillatory in tone and showed bias and that bias was related to s-e
- hamilton et al 1992
- the negative behaviour of a stereotypes group was encoded linguistically abstractly
- Clark and Clark 1947
- black kids pref to idea with white kids
- Black 2 Black
- Rosenberg and simmons 1972 - found that blacks who compared to blacks showed more s-e suggest if part of discrim group can look within
- tajfel and turner 1986
- suggest that soc id is for positive self concept therefore use positive distinctivness to acheive this
- Ellemers et al 1993
- altered perm, legit and stabilty of groups and found that id altered with socio cult variables - so whatever served id best high id if ilegit, unstable and imperm but if perm, stable and legit then less
- ellemers et al 1997
- those with high id didnt leave after bad, even if not know relative status still more likely to want to leave if low id
- rubin and hewstone
- litle to no effect of ig bias on s-e found in review
- gardham and brown
- if had to do soc undes or des thing then if undes then recate and saw as part of superord group of school
- not compo norm
- claire and turner 1982 - found that when just asked to say wat do would not display compo therefore not norm
- not any norm
- hogg et al 1986- even when explicitly told to follow coop norm still bias
- strive for pos discrim
- sachdev ad Bourhis 1987 - when eval on creative then highest bias for equal or high group and og bias for low group
- meta ana for ig bias
- mullen et al 1992 - meta ana of ig bias show moderate effect but sig and that it is for relevant in higher status group
- mlicki and ellemers 1996
- showed that eval and emo components of id although cosely linked were sepereate
- assym of neg and pos
- mummendey and otten 1998 - suggest their finding is bcos superord common fate
- 3 components of id are seperate
- ellemers et al 1999- said previous studies make mistake in infering or indirect measure of id, and in not split up as have dif effects e.g emo on commit and cog on normal measures of id and evalon s-e therefore y group differ in MGP and real life - and y low s-e even with ig bias etc - said when measure and theorise should account for seperate and dev a scale
- Brown 2000
- SIT has 3 main contri - make sense of beh of lower status, complement rct and rdt
- uncertainty reduction
- hogg 2000 - if explain how to use reward matrices then cate not enough thereofre ig bias may be just uncertainty reduce
- billig 2002
- sit neglect affective comp of is for cog