Sozialpsychologie II: Interindividuelle Prozesse
Werbung
Sozialpsychologie II: Interindividuelle Prozesse Wintersemester 2015/2016 Prof. Dr. Roland Deutsch Gliederung 12.10.15 19.10.15 26.10.15 02.11.15 09.11.15 16.11.15 23.11.15 30.11.15 07.12.15 14.12.15 04.01.16 11.01.16 18.01.16 25.01.16 01.02.16 08.02.16 Generelle Einführung Aggression I Aggression II Hilfeverhalten Enge Beziehungen I Enge Beziehungen II Konformität und Minderheiteneinfluss Normen und Verhalten Interaktion in Gruppen Gruppen und soziale Identität JAHRESWECHSEL Interaktion zwischen Gruppen Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen Umgang mit Ungerechtigkeit und Diskriminierung Angewandte Sozialpsychologie Rekapitulation und Konsultation zur Prüfung ab 06.02. vorlesungsfreie Zeit Kernprüfungszeit: Mo, 08.02.2016 bis Sa, 05.03.2016 Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 2 Was können Sie heute lernen? • • • Wie wirken sich Konflikte um Ressourcen auf Intergruppenverhalten aus? Wie kann man Kooperation zwischen Individuen und Gruppen fördern? Sehen wir alle Menschen als gleich menschlich an? Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 3 Die heutige Vorlesung • • • • Rückblick Realistic-Conflict Theory Formen sozialer Konflikte Maßnahmen, die Kooperation fördern Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 4 Effekte sozialer Kategorisierung Wahrnehmung • Priming • Ingroup Member • Outgroup Member • Minority Status Soziale Kategorisi erung Affekt • Konflikt Verhalten Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 5 Handeln Menschen in Gruppen anders? • Le Bon (1895): „Massenseele“ als impulsives Wesen Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Abb. aus Hogg & Vaughan (2008) Smith & Mackie (2007) Folie 6 Aggression in/zwischen minimalen Gruppen Beispielstudie Meier & Hinsz (2004): • Fragestellung: Sind Menschen in Gruppen aggressiver? • Cover-Story: Persönlichkeitstest à Konsum scharfer Chili-Sauce • Vpn bestimmen Saucenmenge (Aggressionsmaß) • UV1: „Täter“ Gruppe vs. Individuum • UV2: „Opfer“Gruppe vs. Individuum Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 7 Deindividuation Metaanalyse Postmes & Spears (1998): • Deindividuation à Tendenz der salienten Norm zu folgen • Positive & negative Verhaltensweisen werden in Gruppensituation verstärkt Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Meier et al. (2007); Aronson, Wilson Akert (2008) Folie 8 Gruppenkonflikte Verzerrte Wahrnehmung & Affekte Soziale Identität Soziale Kategorisi erung Realistische(r) Konflikt/Bedrohung Deindividuation Diskriminierung Reaktion Symbolische(r) Konflikt/Bedrohung „Entmensch -lichung“ Eskalation Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt teils nach Smith & Mackie(2007) Folie 9 Theorie realistischer Konflikte Realisitic Conflict Theory: „The theory that intergroup hostility arises from competition among groups“ (Smith & Mackie, 2007) Interdependenz: Zielerreichung ~ Verhalten anderer Personen Positive Interdependenz: Andere gewinnen à wir gewinnen Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Negative Interdependenz: Andere gewinnen à wir verlieren nach Kessler & Mummendey (2007) Folie 10 Theorie realistischer Konflikte Klassische Studie: „Robbers-Cave“ Experiment (Sherif et al., 1954/ 1966) • Fragestellung: Auswirkung negativer Interdependenz und sozialer Kategorisierung • Untersuchungsumgebung: Ferienlager für Jungen in den USA • Vpn: Weiße amerikanische Jungen aus der Mittelschicht, ca. 12 Jahre alt; einander unbekannt • Hauptphasen: 1. Gruppenbildung: Einteilung in vergleichbare Gruppen; kein Wissen über andere Gruppen 2. Wettkampf: Inszenierte Wettkämpfe zwischen den Gruppen, attraktive Belohnungen für Gewinnergruppe 3. Kooperation: Positive Interdependenz durch übergeordnete Ziele wird eingeführt. Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt nach Kessler & Mummendey (2007) Folie 11 Sherif (1954): Gruppenbildung Folgen: • Gruppennormen • Gruppensymbole, Namen (z.B. Rattlers, Eagles) • Machtstrukturen à Kohäsion Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt nach Kessler & Mummendey (2007) Bilder von http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/ Folie 12 Sherif (1954): Wettbewerb Folgen: • Verstärkung der Kohäsion • Feinseligkeit und Aggression nehmen zu • Beleidigungen, Drohungen, „Kampfvorbereitung“ • Teils Abbruch nötig Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt nach Kessler & Mummendey (2007) Bilder von http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/ Folie 13 Sherif (1954): Gemeinsame Ziele Folgen: • Allmählicher Abbau der Feindseligkeiten Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt nach Kessler & Mummendey (2007) Bilder von http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/ Folie 14 Realistischer Konflikt Wettbewerb um Ressourcen... • negative Einstellungen im Laborexperiment (z.B. Taylor & Moriarty, 1987) • Womöglich (Teil-)Ursache in natürlichen Auseinandersetzungen (Brewer & Campbell, 1976) • Konflikteskalation à Bloßes Gewinnen des Konfliktes rückt in den Vordergrund • Konflikt muss nicht „sachlich“ sein! • Auch Konflikt um Meinungen oder Glaubenssätze hat ähnliche Wirkungen (Riek et al., 2006) = symbolischer Konflikt Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Smith & Mackie (2007) Folie 15 Realistischer Konflikt Beispielstudie McLaren (2003) • Fragestellung: Gibt es einen Zusammenhang zwischen Intergruppenkonflikt (realistisch, symbolisch) und Fremdenfeindlichkeit? • Datengrundlage: - Eurobarometer (EB) Umfrage Frühling 1997, 17 europäische Länder/Regionen - AVn: § Realistische (3 Items) und symbolische (2 Items) Bedrohung § Fremdenfeindlichkeit („Fremde sollten ausgewiesen werden“) § Soziodemographische Variablen der Länder Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 16 Realistischer Konflikt 922 / Social Forces 81:3, March 2003 TABLE 3: Correlations between Realistic and Symbolic Threat and Level of Preference for Expulsion Belgium Denmark W. Germany Greece Italy Spain France Ireland N. Ireland Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Great Britain E. Germany Finland Sweden Austria Economic Threat Symbolic Threat N .43 .34 .37 .16 .35 .36 .59 .26 .39 .36 .43 .19 .42 .31 .37 .36 .31 .45 .40 .41 .16 .29 .32 .53 .26 .37 .32 .40 .19 .41 .35 .34 .38 .37 870 908 900 920 910 904 863 792 196 501 815 861 865 921 907 901 891 Note: Entries are Pearson’s correlation coefficients, with all coefficients significant at the .001 level. Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt McLaren (2003) Bivariate Analyses Before proceeding to the multivariate analyses, the relationships between two Folie 17 Realistischer Konflikt 922 / Social Forces 81:3, March 2003 TABLE 3: Correlations between Realistic and Symbolic Threat and Level of Preference for Expulsion Belgium Denmark W. Germany Greece Italy Spain France Ireland N. Ireland Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Great Britain E. Germany Finland Sweden Austria Economic Threat Symbolic Threat N .43 .34 .37 .16 .35 .36 .59 .26 .39 .36 .43 .19 .42 .31 .37 .36 .31 .45 .40 .41 .16 .29 .32 .53 .26 .37 .32 .40 .19 .41 .35 .34 .38 .37 870 908 900 920 910 904 863 792 196 501 815 861 865 921 907 901 891 Note: Entries are Pearson’s correlation coefficients, with all coefficients significant at the .001 level. Bivariate Analyses Beobachtungen: • Symbolischer und realistischer Konflikt sagen Fremdenfeindlichkeit vorher • Gruppenbedrohung wesentlich wichtiger als persönliche Bedrohung (hier nicht präsentiert) • Ähnliche Effekte bei Quillian (1995) Before proceeding to the multivariate analyses, the relationships between two of the independent variables of interest — contact with minorities and threat perception — and the level of exclusionary feelings are examined first. Table 2 presents the results of a t-test that compares average hostility level, using the 5-point scale discussed in footnote 10, of those who have no friends from minority groups, on the one hand, with those who have many or some friends from minority groups, on the other hand, as well as the gamma coefficients for the ordinal version of contact. The first point to be made about these results is that in every country except Greece, having some or many friends from minority groups is significantly related to lower levels of hostility toward immigrants, and the gamma coefficients in the last column confirm the strength of this relationship. The other main point to make about the results concerns the wide range of percentages of people in these countries who have friends from minority groups. In most countries, only a tiny percentage of respondents claims to have many friends from minority groups,16 with Luxembourg, Northern Ireland, and France being exceptions.17 On the other hand, a fairly large portion of citizens in almost every country has at least some friends from minority groups. Indeed, Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt McLaren (2003) Folie 18 Formen sozialer Konflikte (1) Intergruppen-Konflikt: Negative Interdependenz zwischen zwei Gruppenzielen (2) Soziale Dilemmata: Negative Interdependenz zwischen Individual- und Gruppenziel „Social dilemmas: Situations in which short-term personal gain is at odds with the long-term good of the group“ (Hogg & Vaughan, 2008) Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 19 Das Gefangenendilemma • Gefangenendilemma (GD; Luce & Raiffa, 1957) = soziales Spiel, das als Modell für Konflikte verwendet wird Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Abb. aus Hogg & Vaughan (2008) Folie 20 Das Gefangenendilemma • • Im GD wäre der gemeinsame Nutzen bei Kooperation am größten Typischer Befund: • beide „gestehen“ • dadurch suboptimaler Nutzen • Hauptproblem: mangelndes Vertrauen Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Nach Hogg & Vaughan (2008) Folie 21 Das Gefangenendilemma Realsituationen mit GD-Struktur: • Wettrüsten zwischen Staaten • Werbeinvestitionen von Unternehmen • Arbeitskampf und Streikbruch • Erderwärmung und CO2 Emissionen • ... Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt teils nach Aronson et al. (2008) Folie 22 Das Gefangenendilemma • • Gängige UVn: - „Auszahlungsverhältnisse“ (= Payoff-Matrix) - Kommunikationsmöglichkeit - Als Gruppe vs. allein - Spielhäufigkeit - Bedrohungsmöglichkeiten - Personenfaktoren Gängige Fragestellungen: - Unter welchen Bedingungen wird Kooperation gefördert? - Welche Strategie ist unter welchen Bedingungen optimal? Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt De Dreu (2010) Folie 23 Soziale Dilemmata Weitere wichtige soziale Dilemmata (n-Personen GD): • Public-goods-dilemma: • Definition: „Ein soziales Dilemma, bei dem Individuen zu einem gemeinsamen Topf beitragen müssen, um öffentliche Güter zu erhalten“ (Aronson et al., 2008) • Beispiele: ÖPNV & Schwarzfahren, “Kaffeekassen” • Commons-dilemma (Hardin, 1968): • Definition: „Ein soziales Dilemma, bei dem jeder auf einen Vorrat an Gemeinschaftsgütern zugreift, der sich bei moderatem Zugriff selbst regeneriert, bei Überstrapazierung jedoch erschöpft“ (Aronson et al., 2008) • Beispiele: Fischfang, Abholzung des Regenwaldes Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 24 Soziale Dilemmate: Strukturelle Maßnahmen • • • • • Zugang zur Ressource begrenzen (Menge, Anzahl) Management durch Einzelpersonen Vorteil des Einzelnen an Gruppenerfolg knüpfen Kommunikation zw. Teilnehmern erhöhen Kooperative Gruppennormen zugänglich machen Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Nach: Smith & Mackie (2007); Hogg & Vaughan (2008) Folie 25 Konflikt und Kooperation Faktoren, die Kooperation verringern: • Bedrohung • Verluste • Ärger • Handeln als Gruppe • Große Gruppen • Viel Kommunikation in Eigengruppe • Wenig Kommunikation mit Fremdgruppe • Anonymität Faktoren, die Koopearation steigern: • Freundschaftl. Beziehung • Wiederholte Interaktion • Kollektivistische Kultur • Handeln als Individuum • Soziale Identifikation mit Gruppe, die handelt • Tit-for-tat (+1) Strategie Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Nach: De Dreu (2010); Aronson et al. (2008); Hogg & Vaughan (2008); Wildschut et al. 2003) Folie 26 Bedrohung und Kooperation Beispielstudie Deutsch und Krauss (1960): • Fiktives Spiel: Lastwagenunternehmer können kooperieren oder sich behindern Fragestellung: • Wie wirkt sich Bedrohungsmöglichk. auf Kooperation aus? UV: Bedrohung • Kein Tor • Ein Tor • Zwei Tore AV: Spielerfolg Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 27 Bedrohung und Kooperation Beispielstudie Deutsch und Krauss (1960): • Fiktives Spiel: Lastwagenunternehmer können kooperieren oder sich behindern Fragestellung: • Wie wirkt sich Bedrohungsmöglichk. auf Kooperation aus? UV: Bedrohung • Kein Tor • Ein Tor • Zwei Tore AV: Spielerfolg Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 28 Bedrohung und Kooperation • • Beobachtung: Möglichkeit zur wechselseitigen Bedrohung verschlechtert Spielergebnis Interpretation: Bedrohung führt zu Vertrauensverlust und „irrationalem“ Konkurrenzverhalten Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 29 Tit-for-tat und Kooperation • Stark untersuchte Strategie bei GD (Axelrod, 1984) • Tit-for-tat (TFT) = „wie du mir, so ich dir“ • Man erwidert konsistent vorige Spielzüge des Mitspielers • Fördert Kooperation • Führt oft zu besten Ergebnissen (verglichen mit anderen Strategien) Vermutete Gründe für Wirksamkeit (Axelrod, 1984): • Nett (fängt nie mit Nicht-Kooperation an) • Vergebend (wenn Partner sich bessert, dann auch die Strategie) • Vergeltend (und so motivierend zur Kooperation) • Klar (weil sehr einfach) Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Aronson et al. (2008) Folie 30 Tit-for-tat und Kooperation Studie Kuhlman und Marshello (1975) • Fragestellung: Wie wirkt TFT in Interaktion mit Kooperationstraits? • N = 125 • „UV“ 1: Voreinstellung der Vpn (zuvor ermittelt): • Individualismus: Eigener Nutzen steht im Vordergrund • Wettbewerb: Vorteil ggü. Mitspieler steht im Vordergrund • Kooperation: Gemeinsamer Nutzen steht im Vordergrund • UV 2: Strategie des Mitspielers in einem GD (30 Durchgänge): • 100% TFT (erster Zug Kooperation) • 100% Kooperation • 100% Nicht-Kooperation Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 31 Tit-for-tat und Kooperation 929 EJ?J?ECTS OF MOTIVES AND STKATEGY ON COOPERATION TABLK 4 PROPORTION OF COOPERATIVE CHOICE IN TITE MOTIVE X STRATEGY INTERACTION Opponent's strategy Subject's motive Cooperating Tit for tat Defecting Individualism .3U .63b* .13,. Cooperation .92,.* .80»* .29,, Competition .14? .15* .08 Simple main effects for motive 1- = 34.3 p < .001 I' = 20.9 p < .001 /•' = 1.9 ns for strategy I<" = p < /-' = p < If = 13.2 .001 60.95 .001 1 ns Nole. In any given row of the table, two proportions with different subscripts are significantly different at p < .01 by NewmanKeuls test. In any given column, two proportions with different superscripts are significantly different at p < .01 by NewmanKeuls, Since no simple main effects were obtained among competitive subjects (row 3) or against a 100% defecting strategy (column 3), no paired comparisons were made over the means in row 3 or column 3. strategy produces high levels of defection 100% defection. Of the remaining 23 subacross all three categories of subject. A tit- jects who failed to manifest an altruistic orifor-tat strategy produces cooperation among entation, no simple description of choice beSozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 32 Kuhlman & Marshello (1975) individualists and cooperators but not among havior in the decomposed task was possible. competitors. Finally, a 100% cooperative These remaining inconsistent subjects were strategy produces cooperation only among distributed fairly evenly across the three Tit-for-tat und Kooperation 929 EJ?J?ECTS OF MOTIVES AND STKATEGY ON COOPERATION TABLK 4 PROPORTION OF COOPERATIVE CHOICE IN TITE MOTIVE X STRATEGY INTERACTION Opponent's strategy Subject's motive Cooperating Tit for tat Defecting Individualism .3U .63b* .13,. Cooperation .92,.* .80»* .29,, Competition .14? .15* .08 Simple main effects for motive 1- = 34.3 p < .001 I' = 20.9 p < .001 /•' = 1.9 ns for strategy I<" = p < /-' = p < If = 13.2 .001 60.95 .001 1 ns Nole. In any given row of the table, two proportions with different subscripts are significantly different at p < .01 by NewmanKeuls test. In any given column, two proportions with different superscripts are significantly different at p < .01 by NewmanKeuls, Since no simple main effects were obtained among competitive subjects (row 3) or against a 100% defecting strategy (column 3), no paired comparisons were made over the means in row 3 or column 3. strategy produces high levels of defection across all three categories of subject. A titfor-tat strategy produces cooperation among individualists and cooperators but not among competitors. Finally, a 100% cooperative strategy produces cooperation only among cooperative subjects; individualists and competitors exploit such a person. This response to total cooperation is certainly consistent with the bimodal distribution obtained by Chammah (1970) mentioned in the introduction. 100% defection. Of the remaining 23 subjects who failed to manifest an altruistic orientation, no simple description of choice behavior in the decomposed task was possible. These remaining inconsistent subjects were distributed fairly evenly across the three strategy conditions: 8, 7, and 8 in tit-for-tat, 100% cooperation, and 100% defection, respectively. The PD behavior of these 42 subjects was examined (after arc sine transformation) via a 2 X 3 (Altruistic-Inconsistent X Strategy) unweighted means analysis of variance. The analysis yielded significant Fs for both main effects, but no interaction. For motivational orientation the mean levels of cooperation were as follows: .64 altruists and .36 inconsistents, ^(1,34) =6.6046, p < .01. For strategy, the mean levels of cooperation were .57 tit-for-tat, .63 100% cooperation, and .24 100% defection, F ( 2 , 3 4 ) 4.599, p < .05. These results suggest the desirability of a more systematic examination of altruistic motivation in future research. For the present, it should be noted that inclusion of the altruists increases the proportion of motivationally consistent subjects to 86%. • • Beobachtung: Insgesamt am meisten Kooperation bei TFT; TFT „wirkt“ am stärksten bei Individualisten Interpretation: TFT fördert Vertrauen und Kooperation Analysis of Inconsistent Subjects In a decomposed task virtually identical to the present experiment, Kuhlman and Marshello (in press) found that approximately 11% of subjects were altruistic in their orientation; that is, they appeared concerned with maximizing the other subject's gains. The choice pattern of such subjects across the four classes of games was C in the Triple Dominance (lame, B in the Prisoner's Dilemma, and A in the Maximizing Difference Game. Tn Single Dominance Games 2 and 3, C was chosen; in Single Dominance Game 1, B was chosen. Of the 42 subjects labeled inDISCUSSION consistent in the present study, it was found that 19 (5 males and 14 females) made From the choice behavior in the decomchoices (a majority in each of the four task,15-16 we sec each the motivational Sozialpsychologie 2 ///posed WiSe ///ofIntergruppenkonflikt games) consistent with this altruistic pat- orientations represented by an appreciable tern. number of subjects. Two earlier studies also These 19 altruists were distributed across show sizable proportions of subjects in each the three strategy conditions as follows: 7 in category: Kuhlman and Marshello (in press) tit-for-tat, 7 in 100% cooperation, and 5 in report values of .23, .29, and .14 for individu- Folie 33 Probleme mit TFT TFT kann zu negativeren Ergebnissen führen... • automatische Eskalation nach erster Nicht-Kooperation (EchoEffekt) • besonders bei „verrauschter“ Kommunikation gefährlich Womöglich überlegene Strategie: Großzügege TFT Varianten, z.B.: • TFT+1 (gibt immer ein wenig mehr als Partner; Van Lange et al., 2002) • Nice and Forgiving (maximale Kooperation bis 80% Kooperation bei Partner; schnelle Rückkehr wenn wieder über 80%) Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Bendor et al. (1991) Van Lange et al. (2002) Folie 34 Gruppenkonflikte Verzerrte Wahrnehmung Soziale Identität Soziale Kategorisi erung Realistische(r) Konflikt/Bedrohung Deindividuation Diskriminierung Reaktion Symbolische(r) Konflikt/Bedrohung „Entmensch -lichung“ Eskalation Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt teils nach Smith & Mackie(2007) Folie 35 Entmenschlichung Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 36 13:59 elief in a common he same. It can be ntensely personal. n is a crucial topic Dehumanization: perceiving a person or group as lacking humanness Entmenschlichung 13:59 manization, setting Infrahumanization: tant as a psychological phenomenon because it can be so common an ocide studies (e.g., uences. It is the mostperceiving striking violation of our belief in a common out-group as lacking ade by pioneering t assumption that we are all essentially one and the same. It can be uniquely human dte, discussion of the lust, or indifference; collectively organized or intensely personal. attributes relative to an ffic in concepts ofand in-group ep ramifications, wide variety, dehumanization is a crucial topic esentasaapromising tant psychological phenomenon because it can be so common Humanness: he burgeoning setting uences. It is thepsychological mostattributes strikingliterature violation of dehumanization, our belief in a common that defineon uestions it isof tosociology be human of addressed workthat in other fields andand genocide studies (e.g., tbody assumption we what are all essentially one the same. It can be ploring the diverse We beginorwith a briefMind survey of contributions made by pioneering te, lust, indifference; collectively organized or intensely personal. perception: the oep is dehumanized, process of perceiving 70sramifications, and the 1990sand and then offer adehumanization more detailed discussion the variety, is a crucialoftopic • wide sekundäre Emotionen minds in entities andwhich traffic in concepts of e targets of since dehu-then. have arisen theories, • These kognitive Kapazität the consequences of onal characteristics ss, stereotype content, mind perception, represent a promising • and Zivilisiertheit he burgeoning psychological literature on dehumanization, setting this process when people dehu• Sprache body of work in other fields of sociology and genocide studies (e.g., • ... we examine six key questions addressed nd motivational— theoretical preliminaries, We begin with a brief survey of contributions made by pioneering manization are, exsearch. we askand how people exploring the diverse 70s andFirst, the 1990s then offerdehumanize, a more detailed discussion of the tions. Finally, we rceived as less than human. ask who is in dehumanized, have arisen since then. TheseSecond, theories,wewhich traffic concepts of ops these and individuals that and havemind beenperception, shown to berepresent the targets of dehuss,counteract stereotype content, a promising Dehumanization: perceiving a person or group as lacking humanness Infrahumanization: perceiving an Dehumanization: out-group as lacking perceiving a person or uniquely human group as lacking attributes relative to an humanness in-group Infrahumanization: Humanness: perceivingthat an define attributes out-group lacking what it is toasbe human uniquely human Mind perception: the attributes relative to an process of perceiving in-group minds in entities and Humanness: the consequences of attributes that define this process what it is to be human cus to ask who dehumanizes, addressing the personal characteristics lly prone to preliminaries, dehumanize others. Fourth,six wekey askquestions when people dehutheoretical we examine addressed n the transient emotional,exploring and motivational— search. First, wefactors—contextual, ask how people dehumanize, the diverse Mind perception: the n. Fifth, as weless askthan whathuman. the consequences dehumanization are, ex- process of perceiving rceived Second, weofask who is dehumanized, address dehuman2 /// to WiSe /// Intergruppenkonflikt comes implications of dehumanizing perceptions. Finally, we minds nach in entities ps and and individuals that Sozialpsychologie have been shown be15-16 the targets of dehuHaslamand & Loughnan (2014) onceptualized the the consequences of ehumanization, investigating research on ways to counteract these cus to ask who dehumanizes, addressing the personal characteristics this process l restraints violly prone toon dehumanize others. Fourth, we ask when people dehuentity” and “com- Folie 37 Entmenschlichung Alltägliche Erscheinungsform: • Geringere Attribution einzigartig menschlicher Eigenschaften (z.B. Leyens et al., 2001) bei Fremdgruppen, z.B. • Primäre Emotionen: anger, pain, pleasure, surprise, fear, excitement • Sekundäre Emotionen: shame, resentment, love, hope, disappointment • Stärkere wahrgenommene Menschlichkeit typischer IngroupEigenschaften (Paladino & Vaes, 2009) à Tendenz steht mit Diskriminierung in Zusammenhang! Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Haslam & Loughnan (2014) Folie 38 This document is copyrighted by the American Psy This article is intended solely for the personal use of t ization measures may well be more relevant. On the other hand, more subtle forms of dehumanization. contextual factors such as low outgroup status, intergroup compeRecent work has further distinguished tition, or perceived threat may generate overt and uninhibited SDO: the SDO-Dominance subdimension ( expressions of blatant dehumanization. For example, given the Egalitarian (SDO-E) subdimension (Ho tenor of intergroup relations between Americans and Arabs/MusWhereas SDO-E reflects a more subtle lims in recent decades (punctuated by the attacks of September 11, between groups and is associated with varia 2001, the string of U.S. led wars in the Middle East, and the rise to affirmative action and political conservat of the Islamic extremist group ISIS) and the historical negative active orientation toward enforcing hierarc representation of Arabs and Muslims in American media (Shaassociated with more forceful and aggressi heen, 2003), it seems reasonable to expect that Americans may such as support Entmenschlichung, Vorurteile und Diskriminierung (Kteily et al., 2015)for war and punishment, a overtly perceive and explicitly express blatant dehumanization of “dark triad” of personality traits (i.e., Ma • Fragestellung: Validierung neuen Maßes für Dehumanisierung Arabs and Muslims. Given theeines potential role for dehumanization in sism, and Psychopathy; Ho et al., 2015). Be rationalizing intergroup aggression (Bandura et al., 1996), licensto SDO-E) involves particularly active an some groups as beneath others, we theorize the correlation between SDO and blatant v ization would be most pronounced for SD A second prediction we test is that blata predict important intergroup outcomes (e.g actions in conflictual intergroup contexts) b of dehumanization. We tested this hypothe ing the relative predictive utilities of blatan ization across a range of intergroup context of studies documenting ‘everyday dehuma in recent years, the number of studies exam of infrahumanization, UH/HN dehumanizat Entmenschlichung Figure 1. The Ascent measure of blatant dehumanization. Responses were made for each target group using the sliders next to the groups. Target group order was randomized across participants. Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt 3 Silhouettes lacked texture, detail or color i association biases (e.g., between darker skinned/ tors and modern darker-skinned ethnic groups). Folie 39 ot to be disseminated broadly. Entmenschlichung Entmenschlichung, Vorurteile und Diskriminierung (Kteily et al., 2015) • Studie 1: 172 europäischstämmige per Amazon M-Turk THE ASCENT US-Bürger OF MAN 907 Table 1 Mean and Relative Blatant Dehumanization in Study 1 Assessed Using the Ascent Measure Target M (SD) Quartile (25, 50, 75) American European Swiss Japanese French Australian Austrian Icelander Chinese South Korean Mexican immigrant Arab Muslim 91.5 (15.2) 91.9 (15.7) 91.2 (18.0) 91.1 (16.9) 91.0 (16.9) 90.1 (18.2) 89.9 (19.2) 89.8 (18.7) 88.4 (19.7) 86.9 (23.4) 83.7 (24.7) 80.9 (27.4) 77.6 (29.7) 87.3, 100, 100 90, 100, 100 90, 100, 100 89.3, 100, 100 90, 100, 100 87, 100, 100 86, 100, 100 89, 100, 100 83.3, 100, 100 81, 100, 100 75.3, 100, 100 70, 97.5, 100 60, 91, 100 !! p " .01. !!! Difference score (Americans–[Target group]) #0.4, ns 0.3, ns 0.4, ns 0.5, ns 1.6, ns 1.6, ns 1.7, ns 3.1!! 4.7!! 7.9!!! 10.6!!! 14.0!!! p " .001. Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt served that it was unrelated to SDO-E, a subtler index of support for hierarchy between groups (see Table 2); the difference between the two correlations was significant, Steiger’s z ! 4.78, p " .001. Folie 40 ship between blatant dehumanization and hierarchical intergroup perceptions, we sought to compare blatant dehumanization to subtle measures of dehumanization in predicting attitudes and Entmenschlichung Entmenschlichung, Vorurteile und Diskriminierung (Kteily et al., 2015) • Studie 3: • Messung 3 Tage nach dem „Boston Marathon Bombing“ am 15. April 2013 (N = 574) • Korrelation mit mehreren Indikatoren von Vorurteilen und Diskriminierung Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 41 Entmenschlichung 916 Entmenschlichung, Vorurteile und Diskriminierung (Kteily et al., 2015) KTEILY, BRUNEAU, WAYTZ, AND COTTERILL • Studie 3: l Association or one of its allied publishers. ual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Table 7 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Variables in Study 3A Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Ascent dehumanization 2. Infrahumanization 3. Unique humanness 4. Human nature 5. Perceived outgroup threat 6. Support for Arab immigration 7. Drone strike support 8. Militaristic counterterrorism 9. Outgroup sympathy 10. Vengeance M SD Quartiles — .28!!! .24!!! .37!!! .61!!! $.43!!! .30!!! .47!!! $.35!!! .53!!! 15.58a 25.43 0, 0, 25 — .15!! .21!!! .34!!! $.22!!! .18!! .28!!! $.20!!! .22!!! .29a .90 $.17, 0, .67 — .74!!! .25!!! $.13! .06 .09 $.09 .07 .15a .62 $.18, .13, .50 — .39!!! $.26!!! .22!!! .24!!! $.20!!! .21!!! .23a .74 $.25, .13, .63 — $.51!!! .38!!! .58!!! $.45!!! .49!!! 3.08 1.65 — $.34!!! $.43!!! .43!!! $.42!!! 11.40 6.45 — .70!!! $.46!!! .26!!! 4.00 .99 — $.47!!! .44!!! 3.26 1.38 — $.26!!! 3.55 1.95 — 1.52 1.14 Note. The descriptive statistics for infrahumanization reflect differential attribution of secondary emotions unresidualized on differential attribution of primary emotions. a One sample t test indicates value significantly different from 0, p " .05 (tested only on Variables 1– 4). ! p " .05. !! p " .01. !!! p " .001. born and raised in Britain by families of Christian Nigerian origin, but correlation between SDO-E and Ascent (r ! .34, p " .001; had converted to Islam and claimed that their attacks were religiously Steiger’s z ! 2.06, p ! .04). The correlation between SDO-D and Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 42Muslim inspired. In the aftermath of these attacks, we assessed Ascent was also significantly higher than the correlation between dehumanization using Ascent, infrahumanization, UH, HN, and inSDO-D and each of the other dehumanization measures (infrahuvestigated how well each of these measures predicted negative and manization: r ! .01, p ! .81, Steiger’s z ! 6.85, p " .001; UH: aggressive attitudes toward Muslims. r ! .01, p ! .83, Steiger’s z ! 6.67, p " .001; HN: r ! .09, p ! Was sollten Sie nun wissen? Definitionen/Erklärungen: Positive/negative Interdependenz; Realistic-Conflict-Theory; Symbolischer Konflikt; Realistischer Konflikt; Soziale Dilemmata; Gefangenendilemma und Beispiele; Public-goods-dilemma; Commons-dilemma; Titfor-tat (und Varianten); Entmenschlichung (Dehumanisierung, Infrahumanisierung; Messung) Zusammenhänge: • Wie wirkt sich negative und positive Interdependenz auf Intergruppenverhalten aus? • Wie kann man soziale Konflikte im Labor operationalisieren? • Wie wirkt sich Bedrohung auf Kooperation aus? • Welchen Effekt haben tit-for-tat und großzügigere Varianten auf Kooperation? • Welche Faktoren verringern Kooperation in realistischen Konflikten? • Welche strukturellen Maßnahmen fördern Kooperation in sozialen Dilemmata? • Welche Mechanismen tragen vermutlich dazu bei, dass Konflikte zu Diskriminierung führen? • Korrelate der Entmenschlichung Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 43 Literatur zur heutigen Sitzung Lehrbuchquellen: Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D. & Akert, R. M.(2008). Sozialpsychologie (6. Auflage). München: Pearson. (Kapotel 9). Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2008). Social psychology (5th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson. (Kapitel 11) Jonas, K., Stroebe, W., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Sozialpsychologie: Eine Einführung (5. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Springer. (Kapitel 12: Nijstad & van Knippenberg; Kapitel 14: Kessler & Mummendey). Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Social psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Psychology Press. (Kapitel 6). De Dreu, C. K. W. (2010). Social conflict: The emergence and consequences of struggle and negotiation. In S. T. Fiske, D. T Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (5th ed.). New York: Wiley. Robbers cave Studie (Sherif et al., 1961): http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/ Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 44 Literatur zur heutigen Sitzung Weitere Quellen: Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books. Bendor, J., Kramer, R. M., & Stout, S. (1991). When in doubt . . . Cooperation in a noisy prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35,691–719. Brauer, M., Judd, C. M., & Gliner, M. D. (1995). The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1014-1029. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1014 Brewer, M. B., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes: East African evidence. Oxford England: Sage. Deutsch, M., & Krauss, R. M. (1960). The effect of threat upon interpersonal bargaining. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61(2), 181-189. doi: 10.1037/h0042589 Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248. Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 399–423. Hoyle, R. H., Pinkley, R. L., & Insko, C. A. (1989). Perceptions of social behavior: Evidence of differing expectations for interpersonal and intergroup interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(3), 365-376. doi: 10.1177/0146167289153007 Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & Cotterill, S. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 901–931. Kuhlman, D. M., & Marshello, A. F. (1975). Individual differences in game motivation as moderators of preprogrammed strategy effects in prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 922-931. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.922 Leyens, J.-P., Rodriguez-Perez, A., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Gaunt, R., Paladino, M.-P., Vaes, J., & Demoulin, S. p. (2001). Psychological essentialism and the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(4), 395-411. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.50 Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. Oxford England: Wiley. McLaren, L. M. (2003). Anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe: Con- tact, threat perception, and preferences for the expulsion of migrants. Social Forces, 81, 909–936. Paladino, M.-P., & Vaes, J. (2009). Ours is human: On the pervasiveness of infra-humanization in intergroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(2), 237-251. doi: 10.1348/014466608x322882 Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 45 Literatur zur heutigen Sitzung Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport's cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(4), 461-476. doi: 10.1177/014616727900500407 Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(3), 238-259. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.123.3.238 Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586–611. Rehm, J. r., Steinleitner, M., & Lilli, W. (1987). Wearing uniforms and aggression: A field experiment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17(3), 357-360. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170310 Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336-353. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4 Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. . Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (1977). Integrative complexity of communications in international crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21, 169–184. Taylor, D. A., & Moriarty, B. F. (1987). Ingroup bias as a function of competition and race. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31(1), 192-199. doi: 10.1177/0022002787031001011 Van Lange, P. A. M., Ouwerkerk, J., & Tazelaar, M. (2002). How to overcome the detrimental effects of noise in social interaction: The benefits of generosity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 768-780. Watson, R. I. (1973). Investigation into deindividuation using a cross-cultural survey technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(3), 342-345. doi: 10.1037/h0034218 Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Veva, J. L., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the Group Mind: A Quantitative Review of the Interindividual–Intergroup Discontinuity Effect. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 698-722. Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order vs. deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 237-307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Intergruppenkonflikt Folie 46
