Sozialpsychologie II: Interindividuelle Prozesse

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

Download Report