Social Psychology: Theories of Stereotyping and Group Formation

This document explores the social psychological theories used to explain stereotyping and the development of social groups. It evaluates research evidence, methodological issues, and alternative explanations. The first task focuses on stereotyping, while the second task compares theories of group formation.

Social Psychology

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
QUESTION 1: Using appropriate research evidence, evaluate social psychological theories
used to explain stereotyping along with reference to methodological issues and alternative
explanations............................................................................................................................3
QUESTION 2: How successful have been attempts by psychologists to explain how social
groups develop along with comparison between two theories...............................................8
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................12
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................14

INTRODUCTION
Social psychology can be referred to as the scientific examination of the manner in which
thoughts, ideologies, feelings and behavioural patterns of individual change as a result of real,
imaginary or implied existence of other persons (Martiny and Nikitin, 2019). There are several
key terms in this definition which are defined hereafter. Scientific implies the conduction of
study by way of scientific methods; thoughts, ideologies, feelings and behavioural patterns
indicate the psychological variables which can be measured within human beings and lastly,
imaginary or implied existence means human beings are posed to social influence even when
they are alone. In such instances, individuals get inclined to abide by several internalised cultural
norms.
Social psychologists tend to explain human behaviour as a consequence of
correspondence between mental state and social instances. Social psychologists take into account
certain facets which tend to generate the unleashing of behavioural patterns in a particular
manner in the presence of other individuals. They carry out studies over the conditions under
which a particular course of action, feeling or behavioural pattern take place. Thus, the field of
social psychology is related to the manner in which beliefs, ideologies, feelings, intentions and
goals are cognitively created and the way in which such mental states impact upon the
correspondence taking place with other individuals. The present project is based upon 2 tasks.
The first task explores the several social psychological theories which provide an explanation to
the concept of stereotyping. The second task deals with explanation over the development and
formation of social groups together with the theories that underpin such development.
QUESTION 1: Using appropriate research evidence, evaluate social psychological theories used
to explain stereotyping along with reference to methodological issues and alternative
explanations
In traditional times, social psychologists have been quite stereotypical about the stereotypes. In
particular, the conventional work carried out within the confines of this field represented
stereotypes as misleading, extensive and caustic in relation to inter group relationships. This kind
of instance is also supported by the fact that majority of the investigators earlier emphasized
upon study of several antagonistic groups which had a past full of conflicts, exploitations and
violence (Pettigrew, 2018). This led to the development of a uniform premise in that period

stating that inter group harmony could be made better through elimination of stereotype.
However, irrespective of this earlier ideology, modern form of researches tend to promote a
balanced attitude, somewhat renouncing the consideration of stereotype as simplified error or
rigid schemata.
Facts about Stereotypes
In the present time, several researches are being conducted over stereotypes as well as other
associated topics. Such researches tend to lay emphasis over ethnic as well as gender issue.
Stereotype was one amongst the many apparent themes of debates at the times of reunions of
social scientists owing to their connection with majority of the research subjects related to social
psychology. This term was coined by Walter Lippmann (1922) within a book upon public
opinion. Thereby, the author anticipated some significant positions within modern form of
researches over stereotypes (Ellemers, 2018). These were regarded to be their predominant
cognitive nature, their utility as cognitive economy and energy-saving instruments and the
antagonism underlying within stereotyping as well as individuating procedures. The respective
author contrasted stereotype with steady image in human mindsets which curtails one’s
perception. These are considered to be economic in the way that the present perceptions have
been developed as a result of past experiences.
With the passage of time, several significant features of stereotype have been illustrated
by social psychologists, academicians, researchers and theorists. This results in development of a
robust image of nature, role and effects of stereotype over social functioning as well as
interaction taking place between the groups. Usually, stereotypes are recognised to be:-
 The accumulation of shared conviction or belief regarding the individuals pertaining to a
certain group
 Perception held by a certain interaction taken place within the group members and some
specific traits
 Construct providing an overview of personality traits as well as behavioural pattern
 Standard, steady and preconceived notion
 An innate function of cultural as well as human mind
On the basis of above discussion, it can be said that stereotype is defined through its
social, shared, general, contextual, dual and schematic nature. This implies that stereotypes are
the surmises held by a certain group about the internal or external members in relation to their

personalities as well as behavioural patterns that are generally developed during the procedure of
social correspondence (thus justifying that stereotypes are contextual). Furthermore, stereotypes
are simple, essential and general which together implies that these are schematic.
Stereotypes as collective constructs
Although all of the socially constructed images are not stereotypes yet there are several beliefs
which are mistakenly regarded to be categorised as being stereotypes. For example, certain
individuals think regarding the stereotype that it represents people as well as objects or that it can
be only be possessed by an individual and not essentially shared with the other internal
participants of the group. Certain theorists also consider stereotypes to be the beliefs which
surpass individualistic stage. They are a manifestation of collective constructs as has been
highlighted by Hofmann and predominantly the subtype of “shared constructs” (Holmes and
Smith, 2018). As being the latter one, stereotype gains soundness only in an instance whereby
the members of the group possess a uniform point of view or perception.
This leads to 2 important criteria for underpinning the definition of stereotypes, namely,
generality level as well as analysis level. While the latter is concerned with the question of “Who
possesses the stereotypical beliefs”, the former is associated with consideration of “Who the
stereotypical beliefs refer to”. In the 2 situations described before, there are 3 different
possibilities, namely, an individual, group or the community as a whole.
Figure 1: The analysis and generality level within study of stereotype

Taking into account the level of analysis, a person can just possess a schema of another being or
an “individual stereotype” of specific group or community. In addition to this, genuine
stereotypes can be considered as the beliefs which are commonly held by the groups and refer to
members belonging to another group or category. If stereotypes are possessed by participants of
a group or community and refer to individuals pertaining to another group, community or
category, it can be regarded as a cultural stereotype (Olsson and Martiny, 2018). Furthermore,
taking into due consideration the level of generality, all of the stereotypical beliefs of a person
need to be regarded as schemata instead of stereotype. For instance, an individual can possess the
schema of a certain neighbour and all individuals belonging to the same apartment can possess
the shared schema of property owner.
Theoretical Approaches
Among a number of theories which can provide an explanation regarding the emergence
as well as functionality of stereotypes, one can discover psychodynamic model or the
authoritarian personality, social learning theory, group conflict theory and the cognitive theories.
All things considered, in spite of this assorted variety of specific hypothetical models, three
expansive hypothetical and methodological theories rule the investigation of stereotypes. Every
theory in this relation is characterized by a special point of view towards the concept of
stereotypes and the manner in which they can be examined.
Figure 2: Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of stereotypes

The social cognition approach centers on the investigation around stereotype on an
individualistic level and takes into use mostly the lab researches. Procedures, for example,
categorisation, social recognition and examination are essentially explored and stereotypes are
thereby characterized or defined with respect to schemata or prototypes (Fiske and et. al., 2018).
Opposed to the above theoretical perspective, the inter group relation theory centers on
the collaborative level, particularly upon relationship shared within the members of group, and
along these lines it fundamentally includes study. Stereotype are studied in association with
group membership, frames of mind, social character and confidence and their association with
discrimination and prejudice turns out to be substantially more remarkable. The initial glance
portrays that the two viewpoints above seem to repudiate each other and, surely, specialists from
the two sides will in general overlook one another. Right now the "dichotomy" is finished by a
third approach which is of social representation. In accordance with this view point, stereotypes
are viewed as fundamental or integrated articulations or segments of social representations
(Morgenroth and Ryan, 2018). The degree of research this time rises above the individual as well
as group level. The community or societal focus as well as a rather balanced positioning between
universal and situational claims characterise this last frame.
In any case, it is of immense importance to note that the social representation approach doesn't
consolidate or rise above social cognition and inter group relation (Burkitt, 2018). Each of the
three is an effective portrayal of the perspectives on stereotypes and it is regarded to be the
obligation of social researchers to exhibit adaptability while making selection of the most
reasonable theoretical perspective to define stereotype.
Shift in the role of stereotype
There has been a paradigmatic shift in the concept of stereotype from being considered as
damaging and flawed to identifying their social as well as cognitive utility. Truth being told, the
three significant methodologies explained above called attention to the manner in which
stereotypes may be beneficial if not unavoidable in regular circumstances. The cognitive point of
view is perhaps the most persuasive in exhibiting the manner in which stereotype give its
contribution to cognitive economy and the way it helps every one save valuable cognitive
resources. When contrasted with versatile social circumstances, stereotypes illustrate rapid as
well as versatile "answers" (Burkitt, 2018). Utilizing these encourage individuals in becoming
cognitive specialists and remaining intellectually productive.

On the basis of inter group relation point of view, positive stereotype of in-group and less
positive ones for out-group members tend to inflate the “positive social identity” of individuals.
This is regarded as an exceptional contribution of European social psychology, i.e.., social
identity theory (Agarwal, Reddy and Verma, 2019). Furthermore, it is seen that stereotype tend
to provide a sense of control to individuals over their social contacts, thereby providing them
assistance in reducing uncertainties and avoidance of riskier circumstances.
QUESTION 2: How successful have been attempts by psychologists to explain how social
groups develop along with comparison between two theories
Theory of group formation is mainly based upon three different elements that are
activities interaction and sentiments (THEORIES OF GROUP FORMATION, 2019). There are
different types of theories of group formation which are further being defined as follows:-
Theories of Social Group Formation
Propinquity Theory
Proximity termed as physical closeness of one individual to other. The more the degree of
proximity the more to individuals will be attached to one another and thus come close to become
friends. The term propinquity is mainly termed as nearness. As per this theory it has been
identified from the organisational context that those individuals who perform their work in
organisation tend to form a group with other individuals more easily as compared to with those
individual who work relatively at far-away place. This theory mainly states the formation of
group is mainly based upon nearness. In addition with this it has been identified that it do not
consider and focus more upon important issues within formation of group that are much more
complex then nearness. However it has been further identified that it is not necessary that group
must come forward due to proximity of the people within workplace, while there might be some
different reason for group formation. Thus, it has been stated that this theory is not analytical as
it do not undertake complexities of group behaviour. According to this theory it has been stated
that individuals are affiliate with each other due to geographical or spatial proximity.
Homan Interaction Theory
As per the viewpoint of, George C. Homans it has been stated that the more activities
individual share the more there will be interaction within them that strongly take place which
further lead towards significant increase in number of their shared activities and sentiment. It has
been identified that, the more sentiments individual have for each other the more will be there

activities as well as interaction exist. This theory significantly contributed towards and deals with
having effective understanding related to group formation. Homans theories have been
significantly based on three concepts that include sentiments, activities and interaction that are
further directly linked to each other. It has been further identified that group member also share
activities to accomplish their goals rather than due to physical proximity. The key element of this
theory is interaction due to which individual develop a sense of common centre for each other in
a significant manner. This theory is very comprehensive theory and is further based upon
interaction activities and sentiments. All these elements are directly related with each other. It
has been further identified that the interaction among individual duly arises because of the
common sense that has been developed by them for each other. The sentiments further get
expressed via informal group formation (GROUP FORMATION THEORIES, 2017). In addition
with this it has been further identified that if any form of distribution cause to these three
element sentiments, activities and interaction it further disturb all the other. Mention below the
relationship between these three elements is been shown with the help of diagram:
Figure 4: The Inter-Dependence of Activities, Interactions and Sentiments
Balance Theory
This theory is one of the other comprehensive theories of group formation that has been
coined by Theodore Newcomb. According to him it has been stated that, individuals are attracted
to each other on the basis of same attitudes towards a common relevant goal as well as objective.
Along with this, it has been identified that groups are duly form on the basis of attraction of
individual towards each other with having same values as well as attitudes. In addition to this,
this has been signified that individuals try to maintain a systematically form of relationship
among the common attitude, attraction and values. With the help of this they significantly aim

towards restoring the balance when their relationship becomes unbalanced. However it has been
further identified that if balance cannot be restored then in that situation relationship gets towards
dissolved. Thus, in balance theory interaction as well as attraction is the key important element
that play most essential role. It has been identified that this theory do not duly explained overall
view of group formation, as in this small amount of similarities of values and attitude do not
necessarily lead towards formation of group. In addition to this there are different types of
reasons for group formation rather than attitudes as well as similarity. Thus, by identifying this
theory it has been duly determined that this theory is in additive in nature. As it introduce factor
of balance to proprietary and interaction factors. As to form group it must be essential to form a
relationship between group members. In addition to this, it has been duly identified that the key
point of this theory is that group only formed because of the common attitude and values that has
been possessed by individual. Mentioned below diagrammatic description of this theory is being
duly stated:
Figure 5: A Balance Theory of Group Formation
Exchange Theory
Exchange Theory was established by Thaibaunt and Kelly. It is mainly based upon the
fact that, reward - cost outcome of interaction among employees. This theory of group formation
mainly states that a person will or will not join a group as per the basis of cost and reward
outcome (Bru and et. al., 2019). In this reward is a significant form to join a group and is mainly
in the form of gratifying the needs. While in cost, it is mainly in form of embarrassment, anxiety,
frustration and fatigue. In simple terms the exchange theory states that an individual attracted
towards a group by thinking in terms of what in exchange he will get with interaction with group

members. In this, if reward is greater than cost then this outcome effectively attract attention of
individuals towards to join the group. Thus the exchange theory signifies exchanging
relationship in terms with cost and rewards as to associate with group members. Employees
within an organisation may join to a group for social reason and economic security. Thus, as per
Thaibaunt and Kelly exchange theory it has been identified that in order to join a group an
individual always look towards exchange of relationship. In this reward and cost acts as two
most important element that attract individual to join a group. Thus, according to exchange
theory of group formation it has been stated that the outcome of interaction act as the formative
base for group formation (Kanitsar, 2019). According to this, it has been signified that outcome
of interaction which is cost and reward are the two essential factors that attract individuals as to
join a group. In addition to this, in exchange theory common attitude, affiliation and interaction
play key significant role.
Other theories related to group formation
According to the stage theory of group development it has been signifies that all team
mainly go through via same stage progression. While according to some theories it has been
identified that all teams are not follow the same sequence of state. As per the equilibrium model
that has been propounded by Bales in the year 1966 it has been stated that group members of
team mainly strive towards maintaining formative balance among task oriented actions and
emotionally expressive behaviour. In addition to this it has been determined that group is mainly
concerned towards maintaining formative set of relationship with team members and completion
of task. The team significantly address two of these concerns as when they take place in
sequence or in cycle or even at any stage in a simultaneous manner. In addition to this
Punctuated equilibrium model that was coined by Gersick states that, individuals in group does
not progress in an aligned manner from one step to another in a predetermined sequence but
alternate in between period of inaction with little noticeable progress towards accomplishment of
objectives.
Comparison of Homan Interaction Theory and Exchange Theory
As per the above mention theories it has been signify that all theories have some certain
believes of group formation and based upon certain factors that lead individual to form a group.
Mentioned below there is a formative comparison in between Homan Interaction Theory and
Exchange Theory is been duly undertaken:

According to Homan interaction theories it has been identified that level of interaction
gets stronger if individual shares activities in more number. In simple terms this has been
identified that George C. Homans argues that interaction among group and the environment
within which they operate effectively, this shape final outcome and behaviour of group. In
addition to this it has been duly signified that the more activities individual share the more they
will be interactions undertake within individual that further lead towards increasing sentiments
for each other. This theory is been mainly based upon three components that are interaction,
activities and sentiments which is directly linked with each other. Along with this, it has been
signifies that individuals not only interacts due to physical proximity but they also interact
because to fulfil group goals in best effective manner. In this theory the main key element is
interaction as because of this factor individual develop common sense for each other (Agarwal,
Reddy and Verma, 2019). Within this the sentiments within individual get expressed via creation
of informal groups.
While if it is being considered about exchange theory it has been identified that this
theory is mainly dependent upon the reward- cost outcome of interaction. In simple terms
individuals attract towards group if they get exchange of interaction. In this the maximum
positive level is tend towards reward. Thus according to the above mentioned discussion it has
been identify that both of these theories are duly based upon different from of prospects. As in
homans individuals form group because of the number of interaction that has been undertakes
within them. While on the exchange theories it has been identified that individual from group if
they get any form of exchange with the interaction and group formation. Both of these theories
have totally different bases of group formation. In addition to this it has been signify that
Homans theory is very comprehensive theories and are further depend upon number of activities
as well as interactions along with sentiments. While in exchange theory individual think to form
group if they get reward in exchange. If it is being considered in homans theory, interaction play
key significant role while in exchange theory common attitude, Propinquity and interaction tends
to be key significant factors of this theory. Thus, with the help of formative comparison between
two different theories of group formation that has been undertaken it has been duly identified
that both of these theories of group formation have different set of prospective that differs their
perceptions from each other in number of ways.

CONCLUSION
On the basis of above discussion, it can be said that social psychology plays a crucial role
in explaining the meaning, emergence and contexts of a number of concepts. In this relation, it is
determined that social psychology tends to provide theoretical perspective over the concept of
stereotypes. There are 3 main theories which underpin the explanation of concept of stereotype,
namely, inter group relation, social cognition and social representations. These have divergent as
well as similar point of views regarding stereotypes. Further, it is determined that propinquity
theory, balance theory and exchange theory are some of the vital theories which are engaged in
formation as well as development of social groups.

REFERENCES
Books and Journal
Bru, J. B. and et. al., 2019. Isotropic Bipolaron–Fermion Exchange Theory and Unconventional
Pairing in Cuprate Superconductors. Annalen der Physik, 531(1), p.1700235.
Kanitsar, G., 2019. Solidarity through punishment: An experiment on the merits of centralized
enforcement in generalized exchange. Social science research, 78, pp.156-169.
Agarwal, A. J., Reddy, I. L. and Verma, A., 2019. Emerging Concept of Dynamic Virtual
Organisation and its Impact on Work Life Balance of Employees: A Special Reference to
Boston Consulting Group. ANVESHAK-International Journal of Management, 8(2), pp.72-
87.
Lee, K., Nguyen, T. and Koo, C., 2019. The Complement of Destination and Convention
Relationship: Applying Balance Theory. 인인인인인인인인인인, 19(2), pp.127-150.
Thye, S., Lawler, E. J. and Yoon, J., 2019. The Formation of Group Ties in Open Interaction
Groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 82(2), pp.158-181.
Chan, J. K., 2019. Propinquity. In Urban Ethics in the Anthropocene (pp. 51-72). Palgrave
Macmillan, Singapore.
Liberman, Z. and Shaw, A., 2019. Children use similarity, propinquity, and loyalty to predict
which people are friends. Journal of experimental child psychology, 184, pp.1-17.
Fiske, S. T. and et. al., 2018. Social science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. In Social cognition (pp. 76-98). Routledge.
Olsson, M. I. T. and Martiny, S. E., 2018. Does Exposure to Counterstereotypical Role Models
Influence Girls’ and Women’s Gender Stereotypes and Career Choices? A Review of Social
Psychological Research. Frontiers in psychology, 9, p.2264.
Ellemers, N., 2018. Gender stereotypes. Annual review of psychology, 69, pp.275-298.
Holmes, M. D. and Smith, B. W., 2018. Social-psychological dynamics of police-minority
relations: An evolutionary interpretation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 59, pp.58-68.
Pettigrew, T. F., 2018. The emergence of contextual social psychology. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 44(7), pp.963-971.
Martiny, S. E. and Nikitin, J., 2019. Social identity threat in interpersonal relationships:
Activating negative stereotypes decreases social approach motivation. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 25(1), p.117.
Burkitt, I., 2018. Appearance and Image in the Perception and Misperception of Self and Others:
Ichheiser and Social Psychological Theory. In Memories of Gustav Ichheiser (pp. 87-101).
Springer, Cham.
Morgenroth, T. and Ryan, M. K., 2018. Gender Trouble in Social Psychology: How Can Butler’s
Work Inform Experimental Social Psychologists’ Conceptualization of Gender?. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9.
Online
THEORIES OF GROUP FORMATION. 2019. [Online]. Available Through:
<https://ebrary.net/2817/management/theories_group_formation>.
GROUP FORMATION THEORIES. 2017. [Online]. Available Through:
<https://commercestudyguide.com/group-formation-theories/>.