Suchergebnisse

The present research investigates the normative roots of ingroup favoritism, reviving Tajfel's (1970) abandoned "generic norm" hypothesis according to which (1) most ingroups are perceived to promote ingroup favoritism and (2) people infer this normative prescription in newly assigned minimal groups. Anti-discrimination norms are also prevalent, but we propose that these originally emanate from external (and often supra-ordinate) entities that act as "moral referees" of the intergroup situation (e.g., the United Nations Organization). Two experimental studies using the self-presentation paradigm (Jellison & Green, 1981) supported these hypotheses in a naturalistic intergroup context (Study 1; N = 110) and in a minimal group paradigm (Study 2; N = 206). Moreover, the relationship between these norm perceptions and participants' tendency toward ingroup favoritism was examined. Results revealed differences in the naturalistic and the minimal group contexts. In the naturalistic setting, the relationship between perceived norms and people's actual tendencies was contingent on political orientation. In the minimal group paradigm, inferences of the ingroup norm were, overall, the best predictor of ingroup favoritism. These findings are discussed in the light of current models of intergroup behavior.

This chapter provides an overview of the SIDE model, the Social Identity model of Deindividuation Effect, especially as applied to the new media (email, Internet, social networking). It reviews some of the evidence for the utility and heuristic value of this model in explaining social influence when using these media, and also its relevance for facilitating collective action in cyberspace, and the possibilities the new media provide for political action. However, while eschewing technological determinism SIDE may yet provide some lessons about media use and media design, and the chapter speculates these issues. In order to understand the SIDE model, one actually has to "unpack" deindividuation theory and distinguish two aspects of anonymity that are very relevant to the social identity analysis of deindividuation phenomena and the resulting SIDE model. A final important application of the SIDE model concerns collective action online.

In this article, we first suggest that the approach presented by Elcheroth, Doise, and Reicher is particularly relevant in view of the "neuroscientific turn" that faces political psychology. Thus, we note that the distinction between content and process and the predilection for general, intrapsychological, and content‐free explanations of political cognition and behavior are encouraged by these developments. We contrast the contribution of the social representations approach to the understanding of social conflict and social change with the approach promoted by these new perspectives. Next, we consider the four themes highlighted by Elcheroth et al. as distinctive of the social representations approach. We notice convergences between these themes and several areas of "mainstream" social and political psychology and show that several of these themes have surfaced in these fields without making reference to this approach.

This article examines how interaction by means of computer-mediated communication (CMC) affects the operation of both status differentials and power relations. The authors attempt to provide a corrective to the dominant assessment, particularly within social psychological analyses, that CMC tends to equalize status, decentralize and democratize decision making, and thus empower and liberate the individual user. This emphasis contrasts with sociological critiques employing the Foucauldian metaphor of the panopticon, claiming that power relations can actually be reinforced in CMC. The authors argue that prevailing conceptualizations of influence and power within social psychology have tended to prefigure the more optimistic account, and outline a theoretical framework in which processes of "panoptic power" in CMC are given a more concrete social psychological foundation.

This article proposes a classification of motivations for collective action based in three of Tetlock's (2002) metaphors of social functionalism (i.e., people as intuitive economists, politicians, and theologians). We use these metaphors to map individual- and group-based motivations for collective action from the literature onto the distinction between individuals who are strongly or weakly identified with their social group. We conclude that low identifiers can be best understood as intuitive economists (supported by both early and recent work on collective action), whereas high identifiers can be best thought of as intuitive politicians or theologians (as recent work on social identity has started to explore). Interestingly, our classification reveals a remarkable lack of attention for the intuitive theologian's motivation for collective action. We therefore develop new hypotheses for future research, and derive recommendations for policy and practice from our analysis.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the political nature of laboratory experiments. Such experiments can be construed as paradigms of power, open to construction and debate, where different agents and interests are involved in a process of struggle over both (re)presentation and substance. Experimenters should take a reflexive perspective on their own role and power in producing results, and they should recognize that participants in experiments take into account power relations and accordingly modify behavior that is visible or accountable to powerful others (the "panopticon"). This argument is illustrated by recent research on intergroup behavior, which suggests that biases often taken at face value reflect strategic responses to the situation that balance social reality with social resistance.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the political nature of laboratory experiments. Such experiments can be construed as paradigms of power, open to construction & debate, where different agents & interests are involved in a process of struggle over both (re)presentation & substance. Experimenters should take a reflexive perspective on their own role & power in producing results, & they should recognize that participants in experiments take into account power relations & accordingly modify behavior that is visible or accountable to powerful others (the "panopticon"). This argument is illustrated by recent research on intergroup behavior, which suggests that biases often taken at face value reflect strategic responses to the situation that balance social reality with social resistance. 89 References. Adapted from the source document.

Stereotyping is one of the biggest single issues in social psychology, but relatively little is known about how and why stereotypes form. Stereotypes as Explanations is the first book to explore the process of stereotype formation, the way that people develop impressions and views of social groups