STATE BUDGETARY EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT

OF HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

Ministry of public health of Russian Federation KURSK STATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY

Topic: Social Psychology (Stereotypes, prejudice & Groups)

R.M. Vihari Vichakshana K. Rajaguru 2nd year 1st semester, Group No 32

Submission date: 2014.06.11

Introduction

When we read the newspaper, listen to the TV news, or browse an online news site, we see

hundreds of examples of how people affect others. The media tells us which Hollywood actors

are beautiful. The public reacts when a fifty-six-year-old woman gives birth to twins. A former

janitor amasses a fortune and leaves it to the school where he worked.

Social psychologists try to explain how other people influence our thoughts, feelings, and

behavior; how we form impressions of other people; and why stereotypes and prejudice flourish.

They study how people manage to persuade, influence, and attract us. Obedience to authorities,

group functioning, and helpfulness are part of social psychology as well. Social psychology

acknowledges that we move in and out of one another’s lives, directly and indirectly, and all

parties are, in some way, affected.

The word stereotype has developed strong negative connotations for very good reasons. Negative

stereotypes of different groups of people can have a terrible influence on those people’s lives.

However, most people do rely on stereotypes nearly every day to help them function in society.

For example, say a woman has to work late and finds herself walking home alone on a dark city

street. Walking toward her is a group of five young men talking loudly and roughhousing. The

woman crosses the street and enters a convenience store until the young men pass, then continues

on her way. Most people would say she acted prudently, even though she relied on a stereotype

to guide her behavior.

Social psychologists consider a group to be composed of two or more people who interact and

depend on each other in some way. Examples of groups include a baseball team, an Internet

listserv, a college psychology class, and a cult.

Summary

Title : GROUP BASED RESILIENCY: CONTRASTING THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF

THREAT TO THE INGROUP

The research focused on Group Based Resiliency (GBR), the perception of in-group’s ability to

positively deal with contextual threats. Based on the uncertainty reduction theory, they advanced

that GBR contributes to prevent negative effects of threats to the in-group. They successfully

tested a SEM in which when the in-group is presented as resilient a contextual threat elicits a

stronger perception of in-group entitativity, which in turn produces a stronger in-group

identification. This identification increases life-satisfaction also in terms of better perspectives

for the future. When the in-group was presented as not resilient, perceived threat did not lead to

such a positive outcome. Implications for threat management are also shortly discussed.

Title : Threat, Prejudice, and Stereotyping in the Context of Japanese, North

Korean, and South Korean Intergroup Relations

The research focused on Threat, Prejudice and stereotyping in the context of Japanese, North

Korean, and South Korean Intergroup relations. Even though this research explains us about

specific groups of people in different nationalities we can gain an idea from that in an

international level of study. The researchers have compared integrated threat theory (Stephan and

Stephan, 2000), Realistic group conflict theory (Sherif, 1996) and group justification theory (an

aspect of social identity theory, Tajfel, 1981) in the context of prejudice toward other races.

While it is widely acknowledged that prejudice and stereotyping are related, various theories

propose differing accounts of that relationship. In the original model of integrated threat theory

(Stephan and Stepahn, 2000) negative stereotypes constituted a form of threat contributing to

prejudice in the same way as realistic threat, symbolic threat and intergroup anxiety.

My opinion

After considering the 1st research I think that people’s social identities depend on the groups they

belong to. From a person’s perspective, any group he belongs to is an in-group, and any group he

doesn’t belong to is an out-group. People generally have a lower opinion of out-group members

and a higher opinion of members of their own group. People who identify strongly with a

particular group are more likely to be prejudiced against people in competing out-groups.

But their results also tell that they measured the perceived threat to the in-group may represent a

limitation of this study to be resolved with experimental manipulations in future studies. But I

agree with the fact that in conditions of uncertainty and threat, effective communication on the

positive characteristics of the in-group and on its resilient capacity can play a decisive role in

fostering the loyalty of the members, and encouraging them to take decisive actions.

I agree with the conclusion of the 2nd research. But in my opinion; the researchers find it difficult

to measure prejudice. One reason for this is that people differ in the type and extent of prejudice

they harbor. For example, a person who makes demeaning comments about a particular ethnic

group may be bigoted or just ignorant. Also, people often do not admit to being prejudiced.

And also evolutionary psychologists have speculated that humans evolved the tendency to

stereotype because it gave their ancestors an adaptive advantage. Being able to decide quickly

which group a person belonged to may have had survival value, since this enabled people to

distinguish between friends and enemies.

So according to the second research they identify the effect of negative stereotypes on prejudice

mediated by the mentioned three threat variables. In that way, stereotypes lead to feelings of

threat rather than constitute a type of threat themselves.