These are my notes from the course 'Rejecting Minorities' that is taught at Utrecht University. The notes are written in English, since this is an English subject.
The notes are in black. The notes and assignments in the working group are written in blue. The pieces in green are 'exam' questions t...
Rejecting Minorities:
an interdisciplinary perspective on intergroup relations
Cursuscode: 201500044
Lecture 1 - Introduction
Examples introducing topics within this course
● Coca Cola Super Bowl ad (2014) with #Americaisbeautiful → twitter posts that supported the
ad, but a lot of negative comments in the direction of ‘America is an English speaking country,
so use English!’ etc.
● 2017 video where you see demonstrations; Black lives matter vs. White lives matters
● Way of depiction of black people in (comic) strips
● Dutch people are against refugees from Syria
e
● The Zwarte Piet discussion
- Why are so many people offended by potential changes in the celebration? Why are
nd
the reactions so extreme?
Course topics
1. Understand majority groups’ reaction to minorities
2. The central theories explaining intergroup relations
La
● SIT, RGCT, CT, SDO, RWA, ITT, and TOS
3. How to measure prejudice?
4. Bios of the left
5. Voting for the extreme right (and extreme left)
In this course we work with problem-based research questions. A problem is a societal issue and has a
related question. The related question is a / the research question; judgement and value free, as
n
specific as possible.
- Descriptive question; ‘to what extent do we observe a problem?
te
- Trend question; ‘how did the problem change over time?’
- Comparison question; ‘to what extent are there differences within a problem?’
- Explanation question; ‘why does this problem exist?’ → these are ‘why’ questions
Audit test in retail market; ‘Who has to pay the most for a used car?’ White man / woman or black man /
S.
woman? → Result is that the out-men group (minority men) are more discriminated against and thus
have to pay the most for a used car.
Workgroup 1
Assignment to the ‘blue-eyed vs. brown-eyed’ experiment | Eye of the Storm (1970).
Social identity: As explained in the video lecture, a person’s social identity is based on the realization
that he/she belongs to a social category and the positive or negative evaluation the person associates
with this membership. The lecture gives four criteria that turn a social category into a social identity. Can
you give examples from the film for each of these criteria to illustrate how the eye color turned into a
social identity?
1. Divisive and exclusive:
, - There is a clear division between both groups of children. They either belong to the
group with blue eyes, or with brown eyes. This is visible and unchangeable separation
within the group. Thus, you are superior if you have a certain eye colour. If you don’t
have it, then you are not superior.
2. Context dependent:
- The context in this experiment is that the blue-eyed children and brown-eyed children
switched places after a day (superior became inferior and vice versa). Moreover, this
experiment was only in school and in a particular classroom. Another context is that
children with green eyes were ignored in this experiment. Last context example would
be the behaviour of the superior group; they would act friendly among their own group,
but mean to the inferior group.
3. Having a cultural component:
e
- The (behavioural) rules that were given to the children and how they included that into
their day.
4. Including a judgement of the nature of people in a certain category:
nd
- The characteristics that were given to an eye colour. Blue was better, smarter, superior.
Or, brown was less wasteful than blue.
● The children felt really sad / judged by these statements.
La
Stereotypes
Stereotypes about groups of people can be positive, neutral, or negative. They reflect characteristics
that are ascribed to people who belong to a certain group. Which stereotypes developed about
brown-eyed and about blue-eyed people among the children?
1. Day 1:
- Brown-eyed > more aggressive (blue-eyed parents don’t kick their children)
n
- Blue-eyed > smarter, better, more civilized, superior
2. Day 2:
te
- Brown-eyed > better, smarter, learn faster, good listeners
- Blue-eyed > wasteful
● The teacher pointed out if a blue-eyed / brown-eyed child made a mistake and generalized it for
the whole group. As if all the children belonging to that group were all bad.
S.
Discrimination
Discrimination means that someone is treated differently because of his/her membership in a certain
group. Typically, we talk about discrimination if there is no valid reason for treating the person/group
differently (in contrast to positive discrimination when there is valid reason such as special parking
spaces for people with disabilities). Yet, discrimination is often justified – that is, a reason is given why
differential treatment is appropriate. Can you give examples of how discrimination of brown/blue-eyed
people was justified in the film?
1. It was justified by saying that blue-eyed / brown-eyed were better, smarter, fast learners,
cleaner etc. The teacher would state these as a fact, as if it is solid and unchangeable
Attempts to change social hierarchies
As discussed in the lecture, groups that have an inadequate social identity often seek to change it.
,There are different strategies available to do so (e.g. creativity, challenge, social mobility). Clearly, the
brown-eyed students were not happy with their social identity. Can you give examples of their attempts
to change the situation?
1. Challenge > a brown-eyed student engages in a physical conflict with a blue-eyed student.
2. They tried to voice out that it is not fair (that the situation is not legitimized).
Lecture 2 - Social Identity Theory (SIT) and Realistic Group Conflict Theory (RGCT)
Part I - Social Identity Theory (SIT)
Group formation
Categorization process is a central component of Social Identity Theory. There are multiple / different
perspectives on this:
1. Evolutionary perspective necessary to distinguish friend and enemy
e
2. Cognitive perspective: necessary to process large amounts of information
Categorization
nd
People search actively for information. Then, they simplify processing all that information by ignoring
certain differences and emphasizing (or even exaggerating) certain similarities of that information.
- VB: missing hammer when camping | Taylor, Moghaddam, p. 64
We’re very focusing on the features that matter, and ignoring the features that don’t matter.
La
SIT experiment 1: Non-social stimuli
Tajfel - how do people deal with categories? People have to rate non-social stimuli
→ Line experiment, no categories vs. with categories (A, B).
● Results for the categories: greater difference between lines in category A and B. Also, less
variance within a category.
n
Categorization of non-stimuli: similarities within groups and differences between groups are
over-emphasized. Can this be generalized to social stimuli?
te
SIT experiment 2; Minimal group experiment
Goal: manipulate social categorization as an independent variable. Steps:
1. Generate social categorization on the basis of a trivial criterion.
2. Let participants give rewards to members of their own and the other group
S.
Part 1: dot estimation task → How many dots do you estimate are on this picture? → Being random
categorized into a dot overestimator or a dot underestimator.
- Cognitive redefinition: the group has no history, because it didn’t exist before and no one had
met the others before.
Part 2: rewarding people, choosing from the table with different profits for each group (member).
There are 3 experimental conditions; both in-group members, both out-group members, and one
in-group and one out-group member.
The conclusion of this mininmal-group experiment is that group formation leads to discriminatory
behaviour (in-group favoritism), even if groups are formed on basis of a trivial category.
- This would mean that discrimination is an everyday thing as we daily categorize things, people,
and other stuff in which there is an amount that will be excluded from the categories.
,Tajfel: “Social categorization per se is a sufficient condition for the development of intergroup bias”
(discrimination in favor of the own group).
SIT: The four central concepts
Social categorization is the process of bringing together social objects or events in groups which are
equivalent with regard to an individual’s actions, intentinos, and system of beliefs | Tajfel 1981, p. 254
- Similar to categorization of non-social stimuli:
● use of any characteristic available
● perceive more similarity (homogeneity) within and more difference between categories
- Not just the basis of how we perceive the world, but also who we perceive ourselves.
Social identity is based on the realization that one belongs to a social category and the positive or
e
negative evaluation associated with this membership. Example: positive would be Germans being better
at soccer than Dutch, but negative would be the guilt / actions of Germans of WW2 and the Holocaust.
- Are divisive and exclusive: you either belong or you don’t
nd
- Are context dependent (you identify with different groups in different situations)
- Have a cultural component (with certain behaviours and normative expectations). This turns a
category into an identity.
- Include a judgement of the nature of people in a certain category.
La
This is more than a minimal group. Social identities may thus have even more powerful consequences
in intergroup interaction!
Social comparison means that people try to evaluate their groups’ relative status by socially comparing
with other groups. So, comparing your own group with other groups, so you feel good about your group.
This is possible by believing / concluding that your group is better than another.
n
- People strive for a positive social identity. People are motivated to belong to a positively
evaluated group
te
- They value their own group more than other groups (social identification vs.
contra-identification).
Discrimination because of this. If you want to be seen as the best, positive, or most powerful one, then
you (automatically) have to consider other groups as less or worse than you.
S.
Psychological group distinctiveness which means that people, on the one hand, want to belong to a
positively evaluated group, but on the other hand they have the need to be distinct from others.
- People try to achieve a position of / in their group that is distinct and positive.
- Why? → we want to be special (within a group).
SIT scheme
Explanation picture:
- Attempt to maintain / extend superiority; discriminating another group by giving them less
opportunities and access.
Situation is stable = society not open to change = individual strategy
- Social mobility; try leaving your group and joining the majority group
, - Intra-group comparison; you’re doing
better than the rest of your group.
Situation is not stable = society is open to
change = group strategy.
- Absorption; giving up your own culture
/ identity, and literally absorbing into
your new country’s culture / identity
- Redefine (negative) characteristics;
giving a spin to characteristics of your
group that is perceived as negative →
“Black is beautiful” - movement
- Creativity; opening up a new
e
dimension for comparison between
groups that didn’t exist before.
- Compare to other group; compare to
nd
people that are even worse off than
you
- Challenge (open); protesting / demonstrating against a treatment of your group and trying to
change the social position of your group → only strategy that is (long-term) effective without
La
giving up your
own culture → direct action / competition.
Summary
Social identity theory (SIT)
- Helps understand positive and negative social relationships.
n
- Explains behaviour of dominant and subordinate group
- Allows clear hypothesis about group members’ behavior if they face negative social identity
te
- Is broadly applicable
Example SIT and Zwarte Piet (Black Pete)
Challenge: minority groups challenge the dominant position of the majority on cultural dimension.
Attempt to maintain superiority:
S.
- People react negatively to threats to their positive social identity
- The Dutch gain part of their positive social identity from the notion of being a very tolerant
society.
Reaction: The Dutch react harshly to accusations that one of their traditions is racist (agreeing that
Black Pete is racist would mean that the Dutch have been racists for decades).
Part II - Realistic Group Conflict Theory (RGCT)
Example: in politics there are comments being made by ministers or presidents in which it becomes
clear that there is a competition between the native people and the newcomers.
Classical explanations of prejudice
,Early explanations of prejudice focused on personality characteristics. These were the explanations in
the early ‘50s.
- Allport; the prejudiced personality is ego-alienated (people who blame their miserableness on
others), longs for definiteness (they like how things are supposed to go), for safety, and
authority
- Authoritarian personality
But: “Prejudice is fundamentally a matter of relationship between racial groups.” | Blumer 1958.
Foundation of RCT: Robbers cave experiment by Muzafer Sherif
How do group conflicts develop? How can we solve group conflicts?
The experiment’s study design:
- 22 boys from theage of 12 who didn’t know each other and had the same social background
e
- Random allocation to 2 groups
- 3 phases:
1. Group formation
nd
2. Group competition (baseball, soccer, etc.) → the groups became cohesive and began
talking more in ‘we’. Also, more tension between the groups began to show.
3. Integration → get-to-know activities of both groups (movies, shooting firework) to get
both groups to like each other
La
● shared activities on urgent problems, such as fixing the water reservoir
Maximal group experiment: great external validity due to ‘real life’ setting.
This experiment proves the old approaches wrong
- Randomization, same background: not a personality explanation
- Negative attitudes and behaviour towards an out-group not by dysfunctional individuals
- No history of group conflict necessary
n
- No need for a strong leader (authority) who wants to dominate others
te
Sherif’s conflict theory
Competition between groups can have two consequences:
1. In-group: solidarity, positive stereotypes → ‘we against them’
2. Out-group: hostility, negative stereotypes → ‘we need to beat them’
S.
What is needed for prejudice and conflicts to emerge?
Social categorization
- On basis of shared characteristics
- In-group-favoritism (‘we’ against ‘them’)
Competition over resources
- Out-group-derogation (out-group homogeneity)
Sherif on conflict reduction
Conflict theory predicts when group conflict will occur
- Group competition over scarce resources
It also suggests how conflicts can be solved
, - Work on a common (important) goal in which the goal can only be achieved through
cooperation.
Realistic Conflict Theory
Groups compete for scarce resources in every society. Conflict develops if one group wants something
that another group already has (zero-sum fate). Conflict depends on whether the goals of the groups
are in conflict or shared. Group competition leads to stronger in-group solidarity and out-group hostility
- Zero-sum fate: a situation in which resources gained by one party are matched by
corresponding losses to another party.
New Questions
What resources are we talking about?
e
- What’s realistic about the competition?
● Coser (1956): The functions of Social Conflict
- Realistic conflicts:
nd
● A particular object (scarce resource) wants to be achieved
● Aggression is directed at the competitor for that object
● There are functional alternatives to the means
- Non-Realistic conflicts:
La
● Aggression is the means that people want to achieve
● Aggression is not directed at anyone in particular
● There are functional alternatives to the object
→ It is just tension relief for this group.
- Real-life: often a mix of both (scapegoat theory)
n
VB: realistic and nonrealistic conflicts:
1. People vote for right-wing party, because they’re afraid that immigrants take their jobs | Realistic
te
2. Protesters in Louisiana vandalize cars after an unarmed black man was shot by the police |
Non-Realistic
Axiom of RGCT
There are reasons for competition in every society over scarce resources. This includes material
S.
resources (money, jobs), privileges (power, status), and cultural resources (values, norms).
To what extent is the competition real or only perceived?
Perceived competition and threat
- Is actual (objective) competition necessary for perceived competition and threat?
- Thomas theorem (W. I. Thomas and D. S. Thomas, 1928); “If men define situations as real,
they’re real in their consequences.”
- Coser (1954): “If men define threat as real, although there may be little or nothing in reality to
justify this belief, the threat is real in its consequences.”
Real versus perceived competition
- Blalock (1967): Real competition (objective) versus perceived competition (subjective)
,Which circumstances intensify competition? Who is most likely to perceive competition?
Group threat
- Blumer (1958) identifies four basic feelings underlying prejudice
1. Feeling of superiority → the idea that your group / people of your group are naturally
better than other people (with the use of derogatory terms towards the other group)
2. Subordinate group is different and alien → “they’re not our kind” → social exclusion →
“they’re not like us”
3. Proprietary claim to privileges and advantages → the idea that you can claim certain
e
privileges / advantages, because you are part of a certain group
4. Fear and suspicion that subordinate group threatens the position of the superior group
nd
It is all about comparison. It is not really about the people in the ‘other’ group, but more the social
position of that group compared to their own position. And, whether they feel their position is threatened.
Crucial is ‘the sense of group position’.
RGCT: Group position interpretation
La
RGCT is concerned with comparing its own group’s position with the position of the out-group. It is not
concerned with the comparison of individuals with other individuals.
→ Challenges at the macro (societal) or meso (group) level affect perceived competition.
n
te
RGCT: Individualistic interpretation
Why do some group members develop more prejudice than others?
People might actually not care about the position of the group as a whole, but only about their individual
position. The group is only a means to pursue individual interests
S.
- To what extent do you feel threatened yourself?
- The out-group is a threat to
one’s own position
Theoretical concept model
,From a theoretical model to various testable hypotheses
Prejudice and conflict are the result of actual and perceived competition and threat.
Hypothesis on the macro / meso (group) level
- Competition and threat depend on context conditions
- Leads to hypotheses about neighbourhoods, regions, and countries.
Hypothesis on the individual (micro) level
- Competition and threat depend on an individual’s condition
- Leads to hypotheses about social categories.
How to deduce hypotheses?
General approach: We use previously developed theories to derive predictions for
why-questions.
e
Deductive-nomological model:
1. Law / general proposition: t → y
- Base of the theory or a regularity, which was found repeatedly
nd
2. Specific condition: x is part of t
- Specific situation for which we expect the law to apply
3. Explanandum: x → y
- Derived hypothesis, new prediction
La
Syllogism: drawing a conclusion based on an explanas (law and condition) and an explanandum
Deduction means starting from a general theory and concluding at a hypothesis. Induction would mean
the same, but just the other way around.
Example of hypothesis deduction
Last week: SIT suggests that Black Pete protests may be a challenge to the dominant position of the
n
Dutch majority.
- Law: people react harshly to threats to their positive social identity (attempt to maintain
te
superiority - based on SIT).
- Condition: accusations of Black Pete being a racist tradition challenges the Dutch identity
because it is part of the cultural heritage
- Explanandum: accusations of Black Pete being racist tradition leads to harsh reactions of Dutch
S.
Example 2
Law: the less positive the perception of one’s group, the more people will strive to redefine negative
characteristics of their group as being positive (redefine characteristics - from SIT). Condition: people
from a low status group have a less positive perception of their group. Hypothesis: people from a low
status group are more likely to redefine negative characteristics of their group than people with a high
status.
Group-threat hypothesis (RGCT)
Remember: leads to hypotheses about social contexts!
Example:
- Law: the higher the level of competition, the more people perceive competition between their
own group and the out-group, the more negative are people’s attitudes towards the out-group.
, - Condition: natives perceive more competition with migrants if the unemployment rate is high
- Hypothesis: if the unemployment rate increases, natives’ attitudes towards migrants become
more negative.
Individual-threat hypothesis (RGCT)
Remember: leads to hypotheses about social changes!
Example:
- Law: the higher the level of competition, the more people perceive competition with the
outgroup, and the more negative are people’s attitudes towards the out-group
- Condition: unemployed natives experience more competition with migrants on the labor market
than employed natives
- Hypothesis: unemployed natives have more negative attitudes towards migrants than employed
e
natives
Individual positions
nd
People who are in a similar position as members of the out-group (e.g. immigrants) will experience the
most threat. Who is most at risk?
- Natives with low level of education
- Natives with low income
La
- Natives who are manual workers
- Natives who are self-employed in industries that are also pursued by immigrants.
Part III - Live lecture SIT / RGCT
Topics
SIT | Application to real life
n
- Origin of SIT
● Tajfel’s experiments with non-social stimuli.
te
● Minimal group experiments.
- 4 central concepts
1. Social categorization
2. Social identity
3. Social comparison
S.
4. Psychological group distinctiveness
- SIT scheme
VB | Empirical application by Boda and Neray (2015) | Roma adolescents in Hungary (low status).
- Research question: ‘How does the social position of Roma affect their social relationship?’
● Disliking of classmates (negative relationships)
- Hypotheses:
● Competition: Roma may challenge majority group to establish higher status
> H1: disliking nominations are more inter-ethnic than intra-ethnic
● Social mobility: Individual Roma may try to leave their group and join the majority.
> H2: Self-ascribed Roma students dislike those who they perceive to tbe Roma, but
who identify as members of the majority group (“traitors”).
- Results | Disliking nomination (odds-ratios) | see dia 8 of the live lecture PowerPoint
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller sheridatenlande. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.97. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
