Psychological Theories - Essay Example

?PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES According to Constantine (1998, p54), a group is a collection of people who are brought together in a coherent unit to perform a well defined obligation. Individuals in a group have regular contacts and time to time interaction, mutual coexistent, and they work together for a common goal. Groups are formed to meet different objectives. There are those group formed for functional purposes to meet a certain complicated objective (Constantine 1998, p54). Groups formed on psychological perception have a shared identity and are delegated the responsibility of meeting certain affiliation needs. Constantine (1998, p 56) further stated that, intergroup behavior is the behavior that comes about when members of two or more separate in-group meet. In the real scenario, groups do not operate in isolation. They are always embedded in various group networks. The intergroup conflicts are therefore, likely to emanate during group interaction. Functional theorist believes that, groups formed on functional purpose are more prone to conflict than groups formed for affiliation needs (Constantine 1998, p56). The interaction within a group has both positive and negative impacts on the members. The positive impacts of group membership include; development of self knowledge which is the knowledge on individual mental status (Constantine 1998, p70). Interaction within a group enhances ones beliefs, desire and sensation. Self enhancement is also another positive constituent of group membership where individual identifies his/her weak areas for rectification. Individual with low self esteems also benefits from interaction and coexistence within a group. Additionally, members identify themselves with the group they belong. Reputable groups in calculate a sense of belonging among the group members (Constantine, 1998, p.70). However, Constantine (1998, p. 71) observed some negative reputations associated with group membership. Due to the differences in interest among group members’ there is likelihood of group conflict. In most cases, the conflict is brought about by mistrust and dishonest among group members (Constantine 1998, p71). Additionally, the mandatory exposure within a group encourages prejudice. In the situation of ill judgment on the bases of stereotype, conflict and mistrust in common. Moreover, discrimination is another negative production of group membership. Groups with deviant members are likely to be discriminated by the society on the base of their traits (Constantine, 1998, p. 71). The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis According to Averill (2002, p. 67), aggression is a results of frustration. Therefore, the presence of aggression in a group is an indication of the existence of long time frustration. If a group does not meet the members desires and expectation aggression is likely to emerge. Aggression weakens the center of a group hence necessitating its disintegration. Although frustration is the core cause of aggression, it is not the only cause (Averill 2002, p. 67). Aggression occurs even in absence of frustration. Additionally, there are distinct relationship between frustration and discrimination. Individuals who are discriminated in a group or by the entire society encounters a sense of frustration. They develop low self esteem which has a very negative impact on an individual coexistent in a group. However, in some situation, aggression within a group can be displaced through employment of various group integration mechanisms. However, in some situations it might be very complicated to displace aggression. All this depends on the magnitude and impact of the aggression on an individual and on the entire group (Averill 2002, p. 67). Relative Deprivation Theory The theory was the creation of Runciman in 1966.The relative deprivation is the discouraging feeling which emerge as a result the excising gap between what an individual have and what he expect (Lain 2002, p. 154). Groups are formed to meet certain identified objective. Members feel as sense of disappointment if they don’t meet their objectives. On the other hand, target, goal and expectation can be developed in relation to other groups’ achievement. Unmet expectations are known to cause group internal conflict. The internal conflict in most cases develops conflict between the frustrated group members and out-group members (Lain 2002, p.154). The theory further discusses the differences between egoistic and collective deprivation (Lain 2002, p. 154) .The egoistic deprivation has to do with comparison of oneself with other members in a group. It also talks about identification of oneself with the past. On the other hand, collective deprivation has to do with comparison of one group with another group or own group and its past. Individual who experience collective deprivation do that out of anger. Additionally, collective deprivation may result to protest to express frustration and anger against the group. (Lain 2002, p. 154) Realistic Group Conflict Theory The theory explains the conflict which results from competition either within a group or between different groups. This kind of competitions results into rational behavior among the group members. Competition within the group is a result of conflict of interest among group members. On the other hand, the intergroup conflicts can results into mutual coexistence within a group for a common purpose (Lain 2002, p. 200). There is always a chance of conflict when there is competition among different group. Additionally, competition may reduce conflict. This occurs when there is prior anxiety about the competition. However, there are other causes of intergroup conflict (Lain 2002, p.200). Social Identity Theory Social identity theory was coined by Tajfel and Turner in 1986. It explains how an individual identify himself with a group and with the other group members. It attempt to analyze intergroup biases, conflict, and discrimination using social identity construct (Lain, 2002, p. 154). The theory further explains that, group identity helps individual to develop positive self esteem and reduce uncertainty. The theory is based on concepts of identification, social comparison self esteem, and categorization Contact Theory (by Allport 1954) The theory proposes that, intergroup prejudice can be overcome if members of different group interact with minimum conditions (Burke and peter 2000, p. 226). Prejudice can be reduced if the interacting people abide by the following conditions; when group members values different groups equally, when group interact for a common goal, when there is mutual support and cooperation between different interacting group and the support and respect of the laid down governing authority, law and customs(Burke and Peter, 2000, p. 226). All the above facts joined together results to reduced intergroup prejudice. According to the theory, an ambition to establish equal status between interacting groups can be necessitated by institutional authorities which support the equality perception. The authority should also offers guidance on how different groups should treat each other. On the other, enhancing group cooperation entails a certain level of group interdependence where groups work together for a common goal. However, there has been debate on whether group interaction can reduce prejudice among different groups. To react to the debate Pettigrew and Tropp undertook a meta-analysis to identify the relationship between prejudice and intergroup (Burke and Peter, 2000, p. 226). Contact Group Theory Meta-Analysis (Pettigrew and Tropp 2006) Intergroup contact can greatly reduce conflict between different conflicting groups but the repetition of the contact may be irrelevant. Pettigrew and Tropp conducted a research on different groups to identify the effect of groups contact to reduce conflict (Daniel 201, p. 253). They targeted the following groups; race based groups, mental disabled groups, mentally ill groups, elderly groups, sexual oriented groups and physically disabled groups. The purpose of the study was to identify the extent to which contact compacts prejudice and the level at which prejudice reduces contact (Daniel 2011, p. 253). The outcome of the research in different groups reveled that, contact within groups reduces the magnitude of prejudice which results to conflict reduction. The model concluded that, prejudiced people are not against intergroup contact. However, the procedure to overcome prejudice is very complicated process. Additionally, the research also revealed that, contact can reduce prejudice overtime. Furthermore, contact results to more productive future outcomes. (Daniel 2011, p. 254) On the other hand, contact is recognized for changing in-group and out-group perceptions. The common in-group model is an approach to reduce group biases. According to the model, group can be recategorized in reference to other groups (Richard and Rhiannon 2007, p. 90). Gartner and Dovidio argued that, in reference to self categorization theory, when there is contact between two groups’ members, there are chances of biases reduction. This is because of the formation of a common intergroup identity (Richard and Rhiannon 2007, p. 90). The cooperation of two groups therefore leads to the formation of one group which incorporates the former out-group members. All members of the newly formed group will perceive each other (both the out grouper and in grouper) as members of the recategorized common group (Richard and Rhiannon 2007, p. 90) Gartner and Dovidio carried out a minimal group paradigm to test their model. They came up with two minimal groups under the conditions of two groups’ verses one group verse individual (Richards and Rhiannon 2007, p188). The aim of the experiment was to test whether formation of a common group would result to biases reduction through de-categorization. The group was formed to perform a certain specific job. The outcome showed biases reduction among different group members (Richards and Rhiannon 2007, p188). The reduction of the valuation of the in-group reduced individual condition biases. On the other hand, the one group biases reduction was as a result of the rise in valuation of out-group. The general reduction in the intergroup biases was therefore facilitated by the formation of a new in-group membership which incorporated both the out groupers and in groupers. Members of the new group developed honest within the group which facilitated coexistence. They worked corroboratively in their new task with no biases and conflict (Richards and Rhiannon 2007, p188) However, although there was peaceful existence in the new group, there was different reaction in recategorization among members from different in-groups. The minority groups were reluctant in accepting the membership for fear of loss of their identity (Richards and Rhiannon 2007, p188). On the other hand, members were against the abandonment of their original groups rather they preferred dual group identity. According to them, the former in-group identities were important in the new group (Richards and Rhiannon 2007, p.188) In conclusion, different groups are formed with a well defined purpose. Failure of the group to meet its members’ expectations, results to frustration and aggression. On the other hand, when different groups meet, they portray certain unique behavior which can result into intergroup conflict. However, using various group model and theories, the intergroup conflict can be reduced. Reference Averill, J 2002, Anger and frustration: An essay on emotions. New York, NY: Springer’s Verlag. Burke, E., and Peter J 2000, Identity theory and social identity theory, Social psychology quarterly, 63(3), 224-237 Retrieved on 22 march 2012 from http://wat2146.ucr.edu/papers/ooa.pdf. Constantine, S 1998, Intergroup cognition and intergroup behaviors, Mahwah, New Jersey: Rout ledge. Daniel, J., 2011, The encyclopedia of peace psychology, New York: John Wiley and sons. Richard, J. and Rhiannon N., 2007, Essential social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Limited. Lain, W., 2002, Relative deprivation specification, Development and integration. Oxford: Cambridge university press Read More