PSY2009S Social Psychology & Intergroup Relations Exam Notes (UCT Undergraduate Psychology Core Concepts)

Social Psychology and Intergroup Relations in PSY2009S focuses on how thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are shaped by the presence of others, as well as how group memberships influence identity, prejudice, conflict, and cooperation. At UCT, this material is often examined through core theories, classic experiments, and the South African relevance of race, class, language, gender, and historical inequality. Strong exam answers connect theory to evidence, use precise terminology, and show how intergroup processes operate in everyday life and broader social systems.

1. Foundations of Social Psychology: Core Assumptions, Methods, and Key Questions

Social psychology asks how the social world enters the mind and shapes behaviour. The central claim is not simply that people are influenced by others, but that perception, judgment, emotion, and action are fundamentally social. Even when we are alone, our thoughts are often organised around social categories, imagined audiences, norms, and prior interactions. For PSY2009S, it is important to understand that social psychology is both a scientific field and a way of analysing lived social experience. It studies individuals, but it does so with an explicit recognition that individuals are embedded in groups, institutions, and histories.

What Makes Social Psychology Distinct

A useful starting point is to distinguish social psychology from neighbouring disciplines.

• Personality psychology focuses more on stable traits and individual differences.
• Sociology often emphasises institutions, groups, and structural patterns at a broader level.
• Clinical psychology examines distress, diagnosis, and intervention.
• Social psychology links the individual and the social environment, asking how situations, norms, identities, and relationships shape human behaviour.

A common exam mistake is to treat social psychology as “common sense” psychology. In reality, much of it shows why intuition can be misleading. People often underestimate situational forces and overestimate personal dispositions. This tendency is part of what social psychologists call the fundamental attribution error, a bias toward explaining others’ behaviour in terms of internal traits rather than external circumstances. For example, if a student arrives late to class, observers may assume laziness or irresponsibility, while missing structural reasons such as transport delays, caregiving duties, or campus geography. In South Africa, where inequality and material constraints strongly shape daily life, this distinction is especially important.

The Person–Situation Debate

A central question in the field is whether behaviour is mainly caused by stable personal characteristics or by situations. Early psychology sometimes assumed that personality traits could explain most behaviour. Social psychology complicated that view by showing that ordinary people act very differently depending on context. The same person may be assertive in one setting, quiet in another, compliant in a group, and resistant in private.

This does not mean personality is irrelevant. Rather, behaviour emerges from the interaction of:

1. Person variables such as values, motives, identity, and temperament.
2. Situation variables such as rules, incentives, social norms, power relations, and group composition.
3. Cognitive interpretation, meaning the person’s understanding of what the situation requires.

The most exam-worthy point is that people do not respond to situations directly; they respond to the meaning they assign to situations. Two students sitting in the same tutorial may interpret it differently: one sees an opportunity to speak, another sees a threatening environment where mistakes will be judged. The same objective setting can therefore produce very different outcomes.

Research Methods in Social Psychology

Social psychology relies on empirical methods, and exam answers should show awareness of how knowledge is produced. The major methods include:

• Experiments, where researchers manipulate one variable and observe its effect on another.
• Correlational studies, which identify relationships but cannot establish causality.
• Surveys and questionnaires, often used to assess attitudes, beliefs, and self-reports.
• Observational studies, which record behaviour in natural or controlled settings.
• Qualitative methods, including interviews and focus groups, especially useful for studying identity, meaning, and lived experience.
• Field experiments, which test hypotheses in real-world contexts.

Experiments remain central because they allow causal inference. For example, if a researcher manipulates whether a participant is reminded of a social identity before completing a task, and performance changes, the researcher can infer that the identity cue influenced behaviour. However, experiments in social psychology have limits. They often rely on student samples, laboratory settings, and simplified tasks. A good exam response should therefore include both the strengths and the limitations of experimental work.

Internal and External Validity

Two forms of validity are especially important:

• Internal validity asks whether the study really tests what it claims to test.
• External validity asks whether the findings generalise beyond the study.

A tightly controlled experiment may have high internal validity but lower external validity. By contrast, field research may be more realistic but harder to interpret causally. In intergroup relations research, this tension matters because social identities are deeply contextual. A small laboratory task may capture aspects of bias, but not the full complexity of racism, xenophobia, or gender inequality in South Africa.

Ethics and the Legacy of Classic Studies

Social psychology has a rich but ethically complicated history. Classic studies demonstrated the power of situations, but some also involved deception, distress, or questionable consent procedures. When studying obedience, conformity, or prejudice, researchers learned that powerful social pressures can shape behaviour in ethically troubling ways. Modern ethics require informed consent, minimal harm, debriefing, and respect for participant dignity.

A strong PSY2009S answer should not merely list ethics guidelines. It should explain why ethical concerns are especially serious when research touches on race, stigma, power, and trauma. In South Africa, research involving historically marginalised communities must be conducted with sensitivity to exploitation, asymmetry, and trust.

Core Questions That Organise the Field

A useful way to structure revision is to think in terms of recurring questions:

• Why do people conform even when they privately disagree?
• How do norms influence behaviour?
• Why do people discriminate or stereotype?
• How do groups shape identity and self-esteem?
• What explains cooperation and conflict between groups?
• How can social change reduce prejudice and improve inclusion?

These questions recur throughout the module because social life constantly involves negotiation between individual needs and group realities. In intergroup relations, the individual is never just an isolated mind; the self is always partly social.

2. Social Cognition, Attribution, and Attitudes

Social cognition refers to the mental processes involved in perceiving, interpreting, remembering, and judging people. Because the social world is complex and fast-moving, people rely on shortcuts. These shortcuts are efficient, but they can also produce systematic errors. Understanding social cognition is essential for PSY2009S because prejudice, stereotyping, and intergroup conflict are all shaped by how people process information.

Heuristics and Cognitive Shortcuts

A heuristic is a mental shortcut that helps us make quick judgments. Heuristics are useful because the brain cannot fully analyse every social situation from scratch. Common heuristics include:

• Availability heuristic: judging likelihood by how easily examples come to mind.
• Representativeness heuristic: judging similarity to a prototype and ignoring base rates.
• Anchoring and adjustment: relying too heavily on an initial reference point.

These heuristics matter in social relations because they can magnify stereotypes. If media coverage repeatedly links a social group to crime, those images become highly available in memory, making people overestimate the frequency of criminal behaviour among that group. In a society with intense media narratives about violence or migration, availability effects can shape public opinion powerfully.

Schemas and Stereotypes

A schema is a mental framework that organises knowledge about a category, person, or event. Schemas make the world predictable. However, they also shape perception and memory. People tend to notice, remember, and interpret information in ways that fit existing schemas.

A stereotype is a schema about a social group. Stereotypes are not always overtly hostile; they can be positive, negative, or seemingly neutral. But even “positive” stereotypes can be harmful when they flatten individuality or impose expectations. For example, a stereotype that a group is naturally hardworking may appear flattering yet still be restrictive.

Stereotypes are maintained by several processes:

1. Selective attention: noticing stereotype-consistent information more easily.
2. Confirmation bias: seeking or interpreting evidence in ways that confirm prior beliefs.
3. Illusory correlation: overestimating the relationship between a group and an unusual behaviour.
4. Subtyping: treating a counterexample as an exception rather than revising the stereotype.

In exam answers, it is useful to show that stereotypes are cognitively efficient but socially dangerous. They reduce uncertainty, yet they can justify inequality and shape self-fulfilling prophecies.

Attribution Theory

Attribution theory examines how people explain behaviour. We constantly ask whether actions are caused by internal dispositions or external circumstances.

Internal and External Attributions

• Internal attribution: explaining behaviour by traits, motives, or abilities.
• External attribution: explaining behaviour by situational pressures or context.

The fundamental attribution error describes the tendency to overemphasise internal causes for other people’s behaviour. This is especially strong when the observer has limited information. If someone cuts into a queue, the immediate reaction may be to think they are rude. A situational explanation, such as urgency or confusion about the queue system, is often overlooked.

Self-Serving Bias

People also show a self-serving bias: they attribute successes to internal causes and failures to external causes. A student may say “I passed because I studied hard” but “I failed because the exam was unfair.” This bias protects self-esteem but can reduce accountability.

Actor–Observer Difference

The actor–observer difference suggests that people explain their own behaviour differently from others’ behaviour. Actors see the situation from within and are more aware of contextual pressures. Observers see the actor as the focus and may underestimate situational influences. This is one reason conflict escalates: each side assumes its own behaviour is justified by circumstances, while the other side’s behaviour is seen as personally motivated.

Attitudes and Their Components

An attitude is an evaluation of an object, person, group, or issue. Classic models describe attitudes as having three components:

• Cognitive: beliefs and thoughts
• Affective: feelings
• Behavioural: action tendencies

For example, a person may believe that affirmative action is necessary, feel uneasy about it, and behave by voting for or against a related policy. Attitudes do not always predict behaviour directly. The relationship depends on specificity, strength, social pressure, and perceived control.

Attitude Formation and Change

Attitudes are formed through:

• Direct experience
• Socialisation
• Classical and operant conditioning
• Observational learning
• Media exposure
• Group norms

Attitude change can occur through persuasion. The Elaboration Likelihood Model distinguishes two routes:

1. Central route: careful thinking about arguments; stronger, more durable attitude change.
2. Peripheral route: reliance on cues such as attractiveness, status, or emotion; often more fragile.

Exam questions may ask why some persuasive attempts fail. The answer is that people are not passive recipients of messages. Their motivation, prior beliefs, and identity all affect whether persuasion succeeds. If a message threatens a valued group identity, it may be rejected even if the argument is logically strong.

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance occurs when people experience psychological discomfort from holding inconsistent beliefs or from behaving in ways that conflict with their attitudes. To reduce dissonance, they may change beliefs, rationalise behaviour, or avoid information.

For example, a person who believes in fairness but benefits from an unfair system may experience dissonance. They might resolve it by denying the unfairness, minimising its impact, or convincing themselves that the system is deserved. This is a powerful concept for understanding how inequality can be maintained psychologically, even by people who do not consciously endorse injustice.

Why Social Cognition Matters for Intergroup Relations

Social cognition is not neutral. When people categorise others quickly, rely on stereotypes, or selectively interpret evidence, they can reinforce discrimination. At the same time, cognitive processes also allow people to learn, revise beliefs, and form inclusive attitudes. A sophisticated answer should show both sides: cognition can sustain bias, but it also provides the tools for correction through reflection, perspective-taking, and exposure to counter-stereotypic information.

3. The Self, Social Identity, and Group Membership

The self is a social product. Social psychology does not treat identity as a purely private inner core; instead, it recognises that people define themselves partly through group membership, relationships, and cultural meanings. In PSY2009S, the self is crucial because intergroup relations depend on how people categorise both themselves and others. Once a group identity becomes salient, it can shape perception, behaviour, and emotional investment.

The Self as Multifaceted

People do not have only one identity. They carry multiple overlapping identities such as race, gender, class, language, nationality, religion, sexuality, student status, and occupation. These identities may become more or less important depending on context. A person may identify strongly as a woman in a gendered workplace, as a South African in an international setting, and as a first-generation student in a university environment.

This means identity is:

• Contextual: different situations highlight different identities.
• Relational: identity gains meaning in contrast to others.
• Dynamic: it can change across time and experience.
• Hierarchical: some identities become more central than others.

Self-Concept and Self-Esteem

The self-concept is the set of beliefs one has about oneself. Self-esteem is the evaluative dimension of the self-concept. People seek a positive self-image, but that image is partly built from comparisons with others.

Groups contribute to self-esteem by providing belonging, meaning, and status. If a group is socially valued, membership can enhance self-worth. If a group is stigmatised, members may face psychological pressure to distance themselves, resist stigma, or reframe the meaning of membership.

Social Identity Theory

Social Identity Theory, associated with Henri Tajfel and John Turner, is one of the most important frameworks in intergroup relations. It proposes that a person’s self-concept includes not only personal identity but also social identity, meaning knowledge of belonging to a group together with the emotional and evaluative significance attached to that belonging.

The theory explains several processes:

1. Social categorisation: people classify themselves and others into groups.
2. Social identification: people adopt the norms and values of the in-group.
3. Social comparison: people compare their group with relevant out-groups.
4. Positive distinctiveness: groups seek to be seen as better or at least distinct in valued ways.

A key implication is that bias can emerge even without deep hostility. In-group favouritism may arise simply because group membership itself becomes meaningful. People tend to favour their own group, especially when group status is at stake.

Minimal Group Paradigm

A striking demonstration of social identity processes is the minimal group paradigm. In these studies, participants are divided into arbitrary groups based on trivial criteria such as preference for paintings or random assignment. Even when groups are meaningless, participants often show in-group favouritism when allocating resources.

The significance is profound: discrimination does not always require longstanding conflict or material competition. Mere categorisation can be enough to trigger bias. This does not mean real-world prejudice is trivial. On the contrary, it shows how readily humans create “us” and “them” distinctions, which can then be amplified by history, inequality, and ideology.

Self-Categorisation Theory

Self-Categorisation Theory extends social identity theory by focusing on how people shift between personal identity and group identity depending on context. When a group category becomes salient, people depersonalise in the sense that they see themselves less as unique individuals and more as exemplars of the group prototype.

This does not mean people lose individuality permanently. Rather, the self becomes more or less group-based depending on cues. For instance:

• In a mixed-nationality classroom, national identity may become salient.
• In a gender-sensitive discussion, gender identity may become salient.
• In a protest context, political identity may become salient.

This theory helps explain crowd behaviour, solidarity, and coordinated action. It also helps explain why group norms can become powerful: if people see themselves as “we,” they become more likely to behave in ways consistent with shared identity.

Identity Threat and Coping

When a valued identity is threatened, people may respond in different ways:

• Individual mobility: trying to leave the group or dissociate from it.
• Social creativity: redefining the comparison dimension so the group can feel positive.
• Collective action: working to improve the group’s status.
• Identity denial or concealment: hiding a stigmatized identity in certain contexts.

These responses depend on perceived group boundaries, legitimacy of inequality, and belief in the possibility of change. In South Africa, where many identities are shaped by apartheid legacies and ongoing social inequality, identity threat is not simply personal; it is often historical and structural.

Why the Self Matters in Intergroup Relations

Intergroup bias becomes more understandable once the self is seen as group-based. If identity contributes to self-esteem, then challenges to the group can feel like personal challenges. This is why debates about language policy, representation, land, migration, or curriculum are often emotionally charged. They are not just policy issues; they are struggles over recognition, belonging, and status.

4. Prejudice, Stereotyping, Discrimination, and Their Psychological Roots

Prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination are related but distinct concepts. A well-prepared exam answer should define each clearly and show how they interact.

• Stereotyping is the cognitive component: beliefs or expectations about a group.
• Prejudice is the affective or evaluative component: negative feelings or attitudes toward a group.
• Discrimination is the behavioural component: unjust treatment of people based on group membership.

These processes may occur together, but not always. A person can hold a stereotype without openly expressing prejudice, or discriminate without conscious hostility because of habit, institutional norms, or implicit bias.

Types of Prejudice

Prejudice can take several forms:

• Blatant prejudice: open hostility, exclusion, or derogation.
• Subtle prejudice: indirect, socially acceptable forms of bias.
• Aversive prejudice: egalitarian self-image combined with unconscious bias or discomfort.
• Modern prejudice: denial that discrimination still exists, accompanied by resistance to remedies.
• Implicit bias: automatic associations that may not align with conscious values.

An important exam insight is that prejudice has changed form in many contexts rather than disappearing. People may explicitly endorse equality while still acting in biased ways or supporting policies that reproduce inequality.

Psychological Functions of Prejudice

Prejudice can serve several psychological functions:

1. Justification of hierarchy: making inequality seem natural or deserved.
2. Identity protection: preserving positive in-group distinctiveness.
3. Scapegoating: blaming vulnerable out-groups for frustration or economic anxiety.
4. Need for certainty: simplifying a complex social world.
5. Status maintenance: protecting privileges linked to social dominance.

These functions show that prejudice is not just ignorance. It can be emotionally useful and politically functional for some people or groups. That is why prejudice is resilient: it is tied to identity, power, and social organisation.

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

Realistic Group Conflict Theory argues that prejudice arises when groups compete over scarce resources such as jobs, land, political power, or prestige. When competition increases, hostility intensifies. This theory is particularly helpful when analysing conflicts shaped by economic insecurity or institutional scarcity.

In South Africa, competition for housing, employment, university places, and public services can intensify intergroup tensions. However, the theory is incomplete if used alone. Not all prejudice comes from direct competition. Sometimes groups that are not materially threatened still show hostility because of symbolic threat, historical narratives, or identity politics.

Social Dominance Theory

Social Dominance Theory, associated with Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto, argues that societies tend to organise themselves into group-based hierarchies, with dominant groups enjoying disproportionate resources and status. Hierarchy is maintained through both overt discrimination and legitimising myths that justify inequality.

These myths can include claims that:

• inequality reflects merit,
• certain groups are naturally less capable,
• social order requires hierarchy,
• existing arrangements are fair or inevitable.

This theory is especially useful for analysing structural inequality because it does not reduce prejudice to individual psychology. Instead, it shows how institutions, ideology, and social norms support dominance.

System Justification

System Justification Theory complements social dominance theory by focusing on the tendency for people, including disadvantaged individuals, to defend existing social systems. People often prefer stability and predictability, even when the system is unequal. This can lead them to rationalise injustice, blame victims, or downplay inequality.

The theory is especially important in contexts where inequality feels normalised. People may accept unfair systems because they seem inevitable, and because challenging them is costly. This can be psychologically protective in the short term but politically limiting in the long term.

Contact, Anxiety, and Uncertainty

Prejudice is also shaped by emotional factors such as fear, discomfort, and uncertainty. People may avoid out-group contact because they anticipate awkwardness or rejection. This avoidance then prevents learning and reinforces stereotypes. Anxiety can therefore become self-perpetuating.

A strong answer should recognise that prejudice is not only hatred. It may also involve:

• unease around difference,
• learned fear,
• moral panic,
• anxiety about status loss,
• symbolic boundary maintenance.

Discrimination in Institutions

Discrimination is often understood as interpersonal unfairness, but institutional processes matter just as much. Hiring procedures, language policies, school tracking, residential segregation, and policing practices can disadvantage some groups even without explicit prejudice from individual decision-makers. Structural discrimination becomes especially important when systems produce unequal outcomes repeatedly over time.

In a South African context, this is central. Historical segregation and apartheid created durable patterns in education, housing, labour, and social networks. Present-day inequalities cannot be explained adequately by individual bias alone; they must be understood as the outcome of layered social, political, and economic histories.

5. Intergroup Relations, Conflict, Contact, and Social Change

Intergroup relations concern how groups relate to one another under conditions of difference, inequality, and shared resources. This final section brings together the module’s major ideas and shows how they apply to conflict, reconciliation, and social transformation. In South Africa, these issues are not abstract. They shape everyday life in universities, workplaces, communities, and political debate.

Why Intergroup Conflict Develops

Intergroup conflict can emerge when groups perceive that:

• resources are scarce,
• status is threatened,
• boundaries are rigid,
• histories of harm remain unresolved,
• one group’s gain is interpreted as another’s loss.

Conflict is often intensified by narratives that portray one group as deserving and another as a threat. Political leaders, media systems, and peer networks can all amplify these narratives. Importantly, conflict does not always require objective competition; perceived competition can be enough.

Cooperation and Superordinate Goals

One of the most influential approaches to reducing conflict is the idea of superordinate goals: goals that can only be achieved if different groups cooperate. When groups must work together for a shared outcome, intergroup hostility can decrease because they become interdependent.

Examples include:

• joint community projects,
• mixed team problem-solving,
• integrated institutional objectives,
• collaborative public health campaigns,
• shared academic or civic goals.

However, cooperation is not automatically transformative. If power differences are extreme, cooperation may simply reproduce inequality. For this reason, the quality of the contact and the equality of status in the situation matter greatly.

The Contact Hypothesis

The Contact Hypothesis, associated with Gordon Allport, proposes that under the right conditions, intergroup contact reduces prejudice. These conditions typically include:

1. Equal status within the contact situation
2. Common goals
3. Cooperation rather than competition
4. Support from authorities, norms, or institutions

When these conditions are met, contact can humanise the out-group, reduce anxiety, increase knowledge, and foster empathy. But contact is not a magic solution. Badly structured contact can reinforce stereotypes if one group remains dominant, if hostility is normalised, or if people are forced into superficial interaction without meaningful change.

Limits of Contact

Contact is less effective when:

• the setting is unequal,
• discrimination is institutionalised,
• contact is brief and superficial,
• participants feel unsafe,
• the broader environment encourages prejudice,
• negative contact is more memorable than positive contact.

This matters because many intergroup encounters in everyday life are not ideal. University spaces can be diverse but still unequal. Students may share lecture halls yet remain separated by language, class, residence, or social networks. A serious exam answer should therefore avoid simplistic celebration of contact and instead explain the conditions under which contact works.

Collective Action and Social Change

When inequality is seen as illegitimate and change as possible, groups may engage in collective action. This involves coordinated efforts to challenge unfair conditions, demand recognition, or reshape institutions. Collective action depends on several psychological factors:

• perceived injustice,
• group efficacy,
• identification with the group,
• emotional mobilisation,
• belief that change is possible.

Social identity is central here. People are more likely to act on behalf of a group when they identify strongly with it and see its fate as connected to their own.

Framing and Mobilisation

Movements do not merely arise from grievances; they also depend on framing. Framing means presenting an issue in a way that makes it meaningful, urgent, and actionable. Effective frames can define what is wrong, who is responsible, and what should be done.

For example, the same issue can be framed as:

• an individual failure,
• a policy problem,
• a historical injustice,
• a matter of rights,
• or a systemic crisis.

The chosen frame affects how people respond. In social psychology, framing matters because attitudes are not formed in a vacuum. They are shaped by language, leadership, institutions, and collective narratives.

Intergroup Relations in South Africa

South Africa provides a particularly important context for studying intergroup relations because the country’s social life is shaped by apartheid history, colonial violence, racial capitalism, and ongoing inequality. Group relations cannot be understood without considering:

• race and racial classification,
• language and cultural politics,
• class inequality,
• gendered violence and patriarchy,
• xenophobia,
• religious diversity,
• urban–rural divides,
• the legacy of segregated education and housing.

A South African exam answer should show awareness that prejudice is not only interpersonal dislike. It is tied to histories of forced separation, unequal development, and institutional power. This means that reconciliation requires more than individual goodwill. It requires structural change, truthful memory, and sustained institutional reform.

Common Exam Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Strong answers in PSY2009S usually do three things well:

1. Define terms precisely

   • Do not confuse prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination.
   • Do not use “race” and “ethnicity” interchangeably unless the context supports it.

2. Link theory to evidence

   • Use classic studies and named theories where appropriate.
   • Explain what the theory predicts and what the evidence shows.

3. Apply to South African realities

   • Mention inequality, historical legacies, and institutional context.
   • Show that social psychology is not abstract or culture-free.

High-Value Revision Table

Concept	Core idea	Typical exam use
Fundamental attribution error	Overestimating dispositional causes for others’ behaviour	Explain misjudgment and stereotyping
Social identity theory	Group membership shapes self-concept and intergroup bias	Explain in-group favouritism
Minimal group paradigm	Even trivial group divisions can produce bias	Show that categorisation alone matters
Cognitive dissonance	Discomfort from inconsistency motivates rationalisation or change	Explain attitude maintenance
Realistic group conflict	Competition over resources fuels hostility	Explain prejudice under scarcity
Social dominance theory	Hierarchies are maintained by legitimising inequality	Analyse structural discrimination
Contact hypothesis	Positive contact can reduce prejudice under specific conditions	Discuss interventions and their limits
Self-categorisation theory	Identity shifts with context and group salience	Explain crowd behaviour and norms

Final Integrative Understanding

The deepest lesson of social psychology and intergroup relations is that human beings are not simply isolated decision-makers. They are interpreters of social meaning, members of groups, and participants in systems of power. Cognition, identity, emotion, and structure all interact. People stereotype because the mind simplifies; they discriminate because groups protect status; they cooperate because shared goals and identities matter; they resist because injustice is experienced as collective threat. PSY2009S becomes much easier when these processes are seen as connected rather than separate.

A strong exam essay should therefore move beyond description to explanation. It should show how social cognition supports identity, how identity shapes intergroup bias, how bias can become discrimination, and how institutions either maintain or reduce inequality. In the South African context, these ideas are especially powerful because the country’s social landscape makes visible the relationship between psychology and history. Understanding intergroup relations is not only about recognising prejudice in others; it is also about understanding how ordinary people, including ourselves, participate in systems of categorisation, belonging, and change.