Analysis Of Hornsey Et Al ( 2002 ) On Their Own Groups

Every group, small or larger, exhibit various different dynamics of how people relate to and interact with each other. These interactions vary depending on the nature/goal of the group, the culture each individual was raised in and the personal affects each individual contributes to the group as a whole. For this class everyone was split into groups by the order of our last names on the classlist where the goal of each group is to conduct a presentation on a psychological/sociological phenomena that occurs in society. The group I was a part of consisted of four members, three male and one female, where we decided to do our presentation on the relationship between depression and the use of social media. Throughout the meetings I saw various different psychological phenomena occur such as social facilitation, helping behavior, minority influence, proximity, stereotyping and fundamental attribution error.

They describe the individual as part of a group or indirectly influenced by a group. Based on these three independent variables we based our hypotheses as such:

In the first title, I found the conformity of social norms. And then in the second title, I found the cognitive roots of prejudice, stereotyping. Finally, in the third title, it had both in-group bias and an in-group and an out-group relationship just by observing the title. All in all the titles chosen had bias due to prejudice, which was shown within the wording of the titles. The solutions to conflicts or prejudice would be contact, cooperation, communication, and conciliation. These four ways can reduce prejudice within families, schools, and the communities. In 1966, in summer, 22 Oklahoma City boys were separated into two camps. When there were tasks to accomplish, the boys started to fight and considered a competition. I personally thought this was interesting because that is why we have the Olympics. They were created to “reduce” conflict. But as you can see in the theatrical or even the novels of the Hunger Games series, the games only create more conflict. Surprisingly the conflict that happens, resulting from the hunger games, does not happen in the case of the 22 Oklahoma boys (otherwise known as the Sherif’s experiment of 1966). Later on, when the boys are given a task, the two groups had to cooperate with one another in order to complete the task. And while they cooperated they socialized, communicated. The outcome of the contact was conciliation. Out of the four words, I consider communication the most important. Previously, when I spoke of the IAT, I said I preferred speaking face to face to get a valid result. Though communication can go on with rumors, gadgets like the lying detector can be used for trust purposes. In some cases using the lying detector seems unethical because it can possibly lead to someone thinking that they do not trust one another, causing conflict. But I find it ethical because the lying detector is used for justice, not

When Galang won their first challenge, Gervase cheers loudly and shouts at Tadhana. As Tadhana saw Gervase as a threat in being overzealous, they vote out Marissa in an attempt to suppress him and to protect their own self-esteem. This shows that Tadhana is displaying outgroup derogation. Outgroup derogation occurs when an outgroup is perceived as being threatening to the members of an ingroup. (Brewer, 1999) This phenomenon often accompanies ingroup favoritism, as one needs to have a liking towards their ingroup. When an ingroup is threatened by an outgroup, identity and self worth are also threatened. According to Fein & Spencer (1997), when people derogate an outgroup, they tend to feel superior as a result, and this feeling helps affirm their self worth. In this case, Tadhana voted out Marissa to further strengthen their valued ingroup identity and their own self-esteem to make themselves feel

To effectively achieve the goals of political activities, everyone in the group should avoid social comparison and keep his or her original ideas. Social comparison results in people trying to stay in tune with the group. Surowiecki announces that “It means that people are constantly comparing themselves to everyone else with an eye toward maintaining their relative position within the group”(Surowiecki 479) Since all the people depend on each other for existence, it is inevitable to comparing themselves to others and caring about what others think of them. People with unique ideas which are against most of the group members’ beliefs, are more likely to be regarded as aliens and excluded from the group. To “maintain their relative position within the group” and to gain acceptance from other group members,

There is a nearby connection amongst socialization and prejudice. As the platitude goes, scorn is found out. We tend to go up against the qualities of the general population who raise the group and us we experience childhood in. Despite the fact that a few people can transcend their conditions, we are results of our surroundings. On the off chance that we are brought up in a domain of despise, we may likely grow up to detest. If we are brought up in a situation of resilience, we will endure. At the point when examples of partiality and segregation emerge, they get to be consolidated into the qualities and standards of the gathering. Prejudice and separation toward gatherings then get to be legitimated, transmitted to new individuals through

The study aimed to investigate if artificial grouping lead to in-group bias, and to further examine the effect on in-group bias when participants are given autonomy over the decision in which rating scales are the most important . It was anticipated that in-group bias would be expressed when participants rated their own poster against the other groups in terms of overall effectiveness. This hypothesis was supported. Indeed, a large and statistically significant difference was found between the two scores for overall effectiveness. In agreement with past studies (Brewer, 1979; Buttelmann & Böhm, 2014; Lindeman, 1997), the in-group rated themselves as better than the out-group. This result is important, as it cements past research in proposing that in-group bias is expressed in groups, even if they are artificially created.

History is stained with groups of people hating other groups of people— be it people of a different race, religion, sexuality, or nationality. Such intolerance towards people of a different walk of life can manifest itself in a nation’s laws and political climate. How can society fix the problem of groups hating other groups? In the 1950’s, psychologists claimed that the answer to this highly complicated problem is surprisingly simple: have the two different groups interact with one another. After all, it is easy to harbor resentment towards groups when they are painted in a negative light or stereotyped. It is more difficult to dislike individuals, however.

In-group bias is the tendency to favour one’s own group. This is what was being tested in the experiment that was conducted. Most people think of forms of bias, as one group of having undesirable feelings toward the other group. Although this can take place, researcher have found that many group biases are more favoritism toward their own group rather than having negative feelings toward the other group (Understanding Prejudice, 2014.) it has now become a social norm for people to favor their group that they belong to, and has been established in all cultures. M Marilyn Brewer said "Ultimately, many forms of discrimination and bias may develop not because outgroups are hated, but because positive emotions such as admiration, sympathy, and

Respecting both human and cultural differences in a society is vital as a society can only wholly prosper when respect is mutual among all parties. In order for respect to be mutual among everyone, default judgements need to be fully brought to an end. It is important for the issue of default judgements to be resolved as they negatively impact societies as a whole, whether that be a group of people or even an individual person. As previously stated, default judgements create just one singular story for an entire group of people. A person is more than just what appears at face value as there is always more to one than a single label. As Adichie discussed in her previously mentioned speech, a professor in the United States of America suggested

Both studies relate to the social group idea of in-groups and out-groups. These groups one of the many broad ways of categorizing people groups. The “in-group” is defined as another term for the powerful group, most often the majority. The “out-group” is another term for the stigmatized or less powerful group, the minority. The textbook uses examples of the in or out group in race or sexual identities. This concept can also be applied to religion racism and how one group views another. In religion racism an individual in the majority group would be inclined to look down upon the less powerful group. From the second source, people within a certain religion would consider their own religion greater than another. In both cases the in or out groups

This shows how in-groups can affect out-group members. Then out-group tries to reinforce them to feel better by showing positive aspects of their group. Meaning that they are not fast to judge others. It’s so shocking because here and there I here friends judging others and I have no comment because I don't want to agree, but instead I should say something so that they won't judge.

In-groups, out-groups, and reference groups all affect and are affected by socialization. In-groups are a group toward which one feels loyalty. In-groups provide a sense of belonging and help shape our perceptions of the world. This can bring positive consequences, such as our tendency to excuse the faults of people we love and to encourage them to do better. Out-groups are a group toward which one feels antagonism. Dividing the world into "we" and "them", which can be a result of in-groups, can sometimes lead to acts directed against the out-groups. It can lead to discrimination, hatred, and even murder. You can see the sociological significance of in groups: They shape your perception of the world, your views of right and wrong, and your

In linguistically diverse group, language sometimes can become a barrier for mutual understanding, thus influencing the overall communication in a bad way. In addition, imposing your own set of values on other cultures stops you to provide constructive feedbacks. That is why people become more self-aware when they jump out

When one time dialogue is in act than its possible to short the gap between two groups and cultures. Groups are interested for making fairness results in their given task through good conversation and by giving their different thoughts. ‘Dialogue encourages their participants to cut their stereotypes’. (daniel yankelovich 1999)