← PSY 1: Introduction to Psychology

Unit 21: Groups, Prejudice, and Intergroup Behavior

What happens to behavior, judgment, and hostility the moment people start sorting each other into us and them.

5 topics · 17 questions

Each topic is a path, not a menu: work down it in order and every question builds on the one above. Click any of them to watch the answer draw itself.

Social Facilitation and Social Loafing

  1. How it worksHow does the presence of others boost performance on easy, well-practiced tasks but can hurt performance on hard, unpracticed ones?
  2. Worked exampleFind why the average force each person pulls with in a tug-of-war drops as the group's size grows, a pattern called social loafing.
  3. Going furtherWhat happens to social loafing once each individual's specific contribution can be identified and measured?
Your turn1 of 2
In a tug-of-war, each person pulls with about 95 percent of their individual maximum effort when working alone, but only about 56 percent of that maximum in a much larger group, a pattern called social loafing. Find how many percentage points effort dropped.

In-Group Favoritism and Minimal Groups

  1. How it worksHow does the minimal group paradigm show that a completely arbitrary group label, like a coin flip, is enough to trigger favoritism?
  2. Common mistakeWhy isn't in-group favoritism proof that the favored group is actually superior in some real way?
  3. Going furtherWhat happens to in-group favoritism when the arbitrary groups are given a shared goal that requires them to cooperate?
Your turn1 of 2
Researchers randomly assign strangers to two groups using nothing more meaningful than a coin flip, with no shared history, goals, or real distinguishing traits between the two groups at all. Within minutes, people already favor their own randomly assigned group over the other one. A student assumes real favoritism should require some actual meaningful difference between the groups. How does the minimal group paradigm show that a completely arbitrary label is enough to trigger favoritism?

Implicit Bias and the Implicit Association Test

  1. How it worksHow does the Implicit Association Test measure a bias by timing how quickly someone sorts paired categories and words?
  2. Worked exampleFind why a longer reaction time when pairing a category with good words, compared to bad words, is scored as an implicit preference against that category.
  3. Common mistakeWhy isn't a person's implicit association score the same thing as their consciously held beliefs?
  4. Going furtherWhat happens to the predictive power of an implicit bias score when it's used to forecast one specific person's individual behavior?
  5. Ties togetherHow does an implicit association connect to the limits of introspection, since a person's implicit score can diverge sharply from what they sincerely report believing?
Your turn1 of 2
On an Implicit Association Test, a participant takes about 839 milliseconds on average to pair a category with good words, but only about 634 milliseconds to pair the same category with bad words, a faster response scored as an implicit preference against that category. Find the reaction-time difference between the two pairings.

The Robbers Cave Experiment

  1. How it worksHow did simply splitting boys into two teams and having them compete for scarce prizes manufacture real intergroup hostility from nothing?
  2. Common mistakeWhy isn't intergroup conflict in the Robbers Cave study explained by any preexisting difference between the two groups of boys?
  3. Ties togetherHow does the Robbers Cave study connect competition over resources to the in-group favoritism seen in the minimal group paradigm?
Your turn1 of 2
Researchers split a group of well-adjusted, ordinary summer-camp boys with no prior conflict into two teams and had them compete for scarce prizes, and within days the two teams had become openly hostile toward one another. A student assumes such strong hostility must reveal some real, preexisting difference between the boys placed in each group. How did simply splitting boys into two teams and having them compete for scarce prizes manufacture real intergroup hostility from nothing?

Contact Theory and Reducing Prejudice

  1. How it worksHow does contact theory say prejudice fades under conditions of equal status, shared goals, and cooperation, but not just any contact at all?
  2. Going furtherWhat happens to intergroup hostility when contact between groups happens under unequal status instead of equal status?
  3. Common mistakeWhy isn't simply putting two hostile groups in the same room, with no other conditions met, enough to reduce prejudice between them?
Your turn1 of 2
The same hostile Robbers Cave teams were later given a shared goal, fixing a broken water supply together, that neither team could accomplish alone, and their hostility dissolved. A student assumes any kind of contact between hostile groups should be enough to reduce prejudice between them. How does contact theory say prejudice fades under specific conditions rather than through just any contact at all?