| A | B |
|---|
| lickel model colletive blame and intergroup retribution processes | event categorization->ingroup identification-->outgroup entitativity-->vicarious retribution |
| event categorization | is this relevevant to me? are thre relevant integroup categories? who is to blame? |
| ingroup indentification | how much do i care? threat to identity, empathic anger for harmed ingroup members, normative pressure |
| outgroup entitativity | how strongly do i link outgroup to the event? casual inferences, dispositional inferences |
| vicarious retribution | blame and agression. against perpetarator. against entrie outgroup |
| how does entitativity affect collective respnsiblity | entitavity->CR within and across groups; across cultures |
| measures of intergroup anger study of the 2004 election | -party identification, perceived outgroup entitiativity (perception of calfields degree of interaction and coordination with his partys campaign. 3. anger-general, towards caldfield, towards opposing party. 4. retribution-degree to which the opposing party should be sanctioned/fined for the actions of caldfield |
| processes that keep conflict going. | motivated perception of outgroup entivity (lickel), divergent construal: we see our groups actions as justified and moral, Dehumanization, loyalty and normas of retribution, violence and harsh treatment against outroup made easier by several methods |
| how violence and harsh treatment of outgrpu made easier | euphemisms for death: "collateral damage", division of responsibilty/distance from death, preventing meding from reporting and showing death to outgroup |
| risk of genocide | economic troubles or civil uncertainties. relative degree of power vs. resources. hisotry of conflict and division between groups |
| assumptions about intergroup contact to reduce prejudice | prejudice is rooted in the individual, prejudice is due to ignorance of the true qualties of the outgroup, education is the remedy to prejudice |
| contact hypothesis | bringing ppl of different groups into contanct will reduce ignorance and therfore prejucdice |
| contact hypothesis too simplistic bc | prejudice may have its roots in real conflict. prejudice may have an instituional basis. cantact may increase confilct |
| evidence contact can incrase intergoup conflict | robbers cave study. anthropoliogical data: close group swith more contact generally less liked than distant groups |
| factors that increase the effectiveness of contact | social and instiutional support. cooperation (superordinate goals), equality of status, acquantance potential |
| societal level strategies to fostergin intergroup reconcialtion and tolerance | group applgies and reparations, truth recovery, dispute mediation |
| community based strategies to fostering intergroup reconcilation and tolerance | encourage intergroup contanct and dialogue, promate healingand willingness to trust |
| educational and curricular strateiges to fostering intergroup reconcilation and tolerance | enhance awareness of group experiences, promote tolerance of diversity |
| pettigrew european study | examined differnt social relationships and how they were associated to attuitude. integoup friendships much more strongly linked to postive attitudes than neighbors or co-workers |
| UCLA intergroup attidues study | intergroup friendship formation strongly linked to positive changes in attitude |
| Page-Gould exerimental friendship study | consequences: reduction in anxiety over 3 session particular in cross-race dyads. assessed cortisol as well as self-reports. after 3 sessions. more likely to initate contact with out group members when they wre in the cross race dyads than same race. thus eveidence of effects of friendhps on attidues and behavior. |
