Two Key Studies of Origins of Conflict & Conflict Resolution (DP IB Psychology)
Revision Note
Key study one: Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)
Aim: To provide an overview of research which investigates the contact hypothesis as a means to reducing intergroup conflict
Procedure:
A meta-analysis of 515 studies on the contact hypothesis
The researchers obtained 515 studies which investigated the contact hypothesis, with specific emphasis on reducing prejudice between groups
The quantitative findings of these studies were subject to statistical analysis so that effect sizes could be determined:
the larger the effect size then the stronger the relationship between the contact hypothesis and:
the origin of conflict
the resolution of this source of conflict so as to reduce prejudice
Results:
The overall finding was that the contact hypothesis does predict a reduction in prejudice:
The studies showing greater intergroup contact also showed less intergroup prejudice
94% of studies showed that increased intergroup contact reduces prejudice
This finding was true for a wide range of social groups
This finding was not confined only to racial or ethnic groups.
Conclusion: The contact hypothesis may be an effective way of reducing intergroup prejudice for a range of social groups
Evaluation of Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)
Strengths
A sample of 515 studies generates robust quantitative data which gives the findings reliability:
Quantitative data is robust if it deals with large sample sizes
The larger the sample size the less the data will be affected by outliers and anomalies thus it is can withstand statistical analysis
The use of secondary data means that there is less chance that researcher bias influenced the results
Limitations
Using statistical analysis to understand intergroup conflict is a reductionist approach as it focuses only on numbers rather than on the complexities of human behaviour:
Quantitative findings can highlight what happens but not why it happens
Some research findings contradict these findings, for example:
Minard (1952) found that White miners in a southern state of the USA were happy to have friendly and close relations with Black co-workers, but only when they were underground:
Once they were above ground and work was over for the day the friendly behaviour dropped from 80% to 20%, highlighting the strong adherence to social norms on the part of the White miners.
In this case mere contact and a shared occupation was not enough to pierce the prevailing norms of the time and place
Examiner Tips and Tricks
You can also use Sherif’s Robber’s Cave study (1961) to answer a question on origins of conflict and conflict resolution.
Key study two: Turner et al. (2007)
Aim: To investigate whether intergroup relations can be improved simply by imagining contact with the other group
Participants:
Young people from a large city in the north of England (Experiment 1 and 2)
Heterosexual men from a large city in the north of England (Experiment 3)
Procedure:
The research was conducted using three different experiments
Experiment 1: the researchers asked young participants to either:
imagine talking to an elderly person
imagine an outdoor scene (control group)
Experiment 2: the researchers asked young participants to either:
imagine talking to an elderly person
simply think about elderly people (control group)
Experiment 3: the researchers asked heterosexual men to either:
imagine talking to a homosexual man
imagine a neutral scene (control group)
Results:
Experiment 1:
participants who imagined talking to an elderly person showed lower levels of intergroup bias than participants in the control group
Experiment 2:
participants who imagined talking to an elderly person showed lower levels of intergroup bias than participants in the control group
Experiment 3: participants who imagined talking to a homosexual man:
gave higher ratings for homosexual men generally
perceived homosexual men more positively
perceived there to be greater variability and individuality amongst homosexual men than participants in the control group
A general finding of reduced intergroup anxiety was also a product of imagining talking to an elderly person/homosexual man
Conclusion: Imagined intergroup contact could be used to resolve conflict when it is not possible or practical for groups to interact face-to-face
Evaluation of Turner et al. (2007)
Strengths
The study suggests an ‘easy win’ in terms of resolving conflict and reducing prejudice as the act of imagining is straightforward, cost-effective and accessible to all
The use of three separate experiments means that the study has good internal validity:
The findings of each experiment check and agree with the findings from the others
Limitations
The participants may have succumbed to social desirability bias:
It is socially acceptable to express positive feelings towards outgroups, particularly if those outgroups are easily stereotyped or discriminated against
Expressing positive feelings towards the elderly/homosexual men may have been the result of simply going along with what participants thought the researchers wanted to hear (they may have hidden their true feelings)
Asking large numbers of people to ‘simply imagine’ talking to an outgroup member may prove difficult to achieve on a large scale
Worked Example
ERQ (EXTENDED RESPONSE QUESTION) 22 MARKS
The question is, ‘Evaluate research into the origins of conflict and conflict resolution’ [22]’
This essay is asking you to assess the strengths and limitations of one or more explanations relating to origins of conflict and conflict resolution, with the emphasis being placed on the arguments and methods used by the researchers. Here is one paragraph for guidance:
Pettigrew & Tropp’s (2006) meta-analytical study of research on the contact hypothesis could be said to be reliable due to the large sample size of 515 studies translated into effect sizes. Effect sizes can pinpoint the extent to which a phenomenon such as intergroup conflict can be resolved via strategies such as the contact hypothesis. The problem with an effect size though, is that it can highlight what the issue is and how strong the relationship is but not why such an effect or relationship exists. Thus, a meta-analysis may generate robust data but it is ultimately lacking in explanatory power.
You've read 0 of your 5 free revision notes this week
Sign up now. It’s free!
Did this page help you?