Intergroup Conflict
Intergroup Conflict Overview
Intergroup conflict is a significant area of study in psychology, particularly explored in Chapter 13, pages 497-513, focusing on how group processes can increase conflict between different groups.
The Discontinuity Effect
Research indicates that groups tend to be more competitive with other groups than individuals are with other individuals. This phenomenon is known as the discontinuity effect. This increased competitiveness is observed across various social interactions. For instance, when comparing one-to-one interactions to group-to-group interactions, the percentage of competitive behavior increases significantly. The relative competitiveness of different situations can be visualized as:
One-to-one interaction: Lowest percentage of competitiveness.
Within-group interaction: Slightly higher competitiveness than one-to-one.
One-to-group interaction: Moderate competitiveness.
Group-to-one interaction: Higher competitiveness.
Group-to-group interaction: Significantly higher competitiveness, often approaching 50 percent or more. This illustrates that group contexts foster a greater degree of competitiveness compared to individual interactions.
The Robbers Cave Experiment (Sherif et al., 1949)
This seminal study, often cited as an inspiration for William Golding's Lord of the Flies, investigated the dynamics of intergroup conflict and cooperation among unsupervised boys. Gina Perry's book "The Lost Boys" and Taig Spearman's article further explore its insights and the life of Muzafer Sherif.
Research Phases:
Group Forming: In this initial phase, boys were unknowingly divided into two groups at a summer camp in Robbers Cave State Park, Oklahoma. They engaged in typical "tribal" activities, leading to the formation of group norms, roles, and a strong sense of in-group identity (e.g., calling themselves the "Rattlers" and the "Eagles").
Competition: The groups were then put into a series of competitive situations (e.g., baseball, tug-of-war) where only one group could win a coveted prize. This phase led to:
Within-group solidarity: Members grew closer and more loyal to their own group.
Negative stereotyping: Each group began to form negative opinions and stereotypes about the out-group.
Hostile interactions: Verbal insults, property damage, and even physical altercations erupted between the groups.
Conflict Resolution: Sherif and his colleagues attempted to resolve the conflict by introducing various strategies, ultimately finding success with superordinate goals.
Causes of Conflict
Two primary theoretical frameworks explain the causes of intergroup conflict:
Realistic Conflict Theory
Proposed by Sherif, this theory posits that intergroup conflict arises from actual competition between groups for scarce resources. Key tenets include:
Competition: Groups compete over limited resources, status, or power.
Self-interest: Groups act in their own collective self-interest to secure these resources.
Zero-sum: The belief that one group's gain is necessarily another group's loss (a zero-sum game).
Only one winner: As demonstrated in the Robbers Cave experiment, when a situation dictates that only one group can achieve victory (e.g., winning trophies and awards), conflict is highly likely.
Social Identity Theory
Developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner, this theory emphasizes the psychological processes involved in forming social identities and their impact on intergroup relations. Key concepts include:
Social categorization: People categorize themselves and others into various social groups (in-groups and out-groups).
Social comparison: Individuals compare their in-group favorably to out-groups to enhance their self-esteem.
Positive self-esteem: A fundamental human motive is to maintain a positive self-image, and belonging to a superior group contributes to this.
Optimal distinctiveness: Individuals strive for a balance between fitting in with their in-group and maintaining a sense of personal uniqueness.
Superordinate Goals for Conflict Reduction
Building on the Robbers Cave experiment, Sherif (1949) found that simply bringing hostile groups together was insufficient to reduce conflict. Instead, superordinate goals were necessary. These are goals that are highly desirable to both groups but can only be achieved through mutual cooperation, making both groups dependent on each other. The introduction of such goals (e.g., fixing a broken water supply or a stalled truck) led to:
Cooperation: Groups were forced to work together.
Positive interaction: Contact under these cooperative conditions fostered more positive interactions and reduced animosity.
Reducing conflict: Over time, shared success in achieving superordinate goals significantly reduced intergroup conflict and prejudice.
Critiques of the Robbers Cave Experiment
Despite its groundbreaking insights, the Robbers Cave experiment has faced some critiques:
"Really one group": Some argue that the boys, being from similar backgrounds and carefully selected for their homogeneity, constituted a single, relatively harmonious group before the experimental manipulation, which might limit the generalizability to more diverse, real-world groups.
Conflict eq competition: Critics argue that while competition can lead to conflict, they are not synonymous, and the experiment might have conflated the two.
Limited scope of explanation: Realistic Conflict Theory, while useful, may have a limited scope in fully explaining all forms of intergroup conflict, especially those not directly tied to tangible resource competition.
Escalation of Conflict
When conflict ignites, several factors can contribute to its escalation:
Communication: Both within and between groups.
Cognitive Bias: Distortions in perception and judgment, often influenced by emotional processes.
Power Asymmetry: Imbalances in power between groups.
Communication Within the Group
Communication within a group during conflict can lead to several escalating dynamics:
Group polarization: Group discussions tend to strengthen the initial inclinations of individual members, making the group's stance more extreme.
Commitment: As group members publicly express their views, they become more committed to those positions.
Cognitive dissonance reduction: To reduce discomfort from conflicting beliefs or actions, individuals may rationalize and solidify their group's stance, even if extreme.
Group norms become personal norms: The group's adversarial norms are internalized by individuals.
Extremization: Together, these processes lead to more extreme and competitive attitudes within the group.
Communication with the Out-group
Interactions with the opposing group during conflict often involve:
Negative communication: Characterized by hostility, insults, and accusations.
Issuing threats: Groups may use threats to gain leverage.
Better position for negotiations: Paradoxically, issuing threats might be perceived by the threatening group as a way to achieve a better negotiating position.
Hardening positions: However, threats typically lead to the hardening of positions by both sides, making compromise more difficult.
Routes to Conflict: The Deutsch & Krauss (1960) Trucking Game
This classic experiment demonstrated how the availability of threats exacerbates conflict. Participants played a trucking game where they had to deliver goods on a shared one-lane road. The most direct route (Acme and Bolt's one-lane road) was shared, while alternative routes were longer. The key manipulation involved gates controlled by each player that could block the other's access to the one-lane road. The study found that:
Threats and counterthreats: When both parties had the ability to threaten (control a gate), they were more likely to use it, leading to lower profits and more conflict than when no threats were available or only one party had a threat.
Justifies aggression: Threats provide a justification for retaliatory aggression.
Forces out messages of cooperation: The presence of threats effectively stifles attempts at cooperation, as each side is preoccupied with defense or offense.
The Impact of Threats on Intergroup Relations
Threats can range in severity and have distinct consequences:
Mild Threat
Discrimination: Groups might engage in subtle or overt acts of discrimination.
Threat to self-esteem: The existence of a competing group can indirectly threaten one's self-esteem if the out-group is perceived as superior or if the in-group's status is challenged.
Competing groups: Leads to a dynamic where groups compare themselves against each other.
Groups with unequal status: Mild threats are particularly potent when groups already have unequal status, reinforcing existing hierarchies or creating new tensions.
Extreme Threat
Extreme threats escalate conflict to dangerous levels:
Glorification of the in-group: In times of extreme threat, the in-group's qualities, values, and achievements are greatly exaggerated and celebrated.
In-group values used to judge others: The in-group's values become the moral standard, and out-groups are judged (and found wanting) against these standards.
Rationalizes, justifies violence: This moral superiority and derogation of the out-group serve to rationalize and justify violence against them.
Vicarious Retribution
This concept describes the act of seeking revenge on innocent members of an out-group for actions committed by other members of that group. Key aspects include:
Revenge on innocent members of out-group: The targets of retribution are not necessarily the direct perpetrators of the original offense.
Collective responsibility – collective punishment: The entire out-group is held responsible for the actions of a few, leading to collective punishment.
Neither the perpetrator nor the victim is personally affected: Often, the individual who initiates violent retribution is not the original victim of the offense, and the specific target of the retribution is not the original perpetrator. This process is deeply tied to social identity, where an attack on one member of the in-group is perceived as an attack on the collective identity, leading to collective retaliation against the out-group.
Coalition Formation
In escalating conflicts, groups may seek to strengthen their position by forming alliances, which can have significant consequences:
Calling in outsiders to help: Groups bring in third parties to support their cause.
Polarizing multiple parties into two sides: This often turns complex multiparty disputes into a simplified good-vs-evil dynamic.
No neutral position in conflict: The pressure to choose sides intensifies, making it difficult for any party to remain neutral.
Biased Perception in Conflict
Intergroup conflict significantly distorts perceptions of both the in-group and the out-group.
Moral Superiority
Groups engaged in conflict often develop a self-serving bias where:
"Us" (in-group): Perceived as powerful, able, and inherently good, unable to do wrong.
"Them" (out-group): Perceived as weak, evil, sub-human, and unable to do right.
This creates a sharp dichotomy that fuels animosity, as illustrated by propaganda portraying "our blessed homeland" versus "their barbarous wastes," "our glorious leader" versus "their wicked despot," etc.
Attribution Error
Fundamental attribution error plays a critical role in conflict:
Out-group aggression: Attributed to bad intentions, inherent bad nature, or evil motives of the out-group.
In-group aggression: Viewed as justified, proportional, and a necessary response to the out-group's provocations.
Ingroup Glorification (Roccas, Klar, & Liviatan, 2006)
This research distinguishes between two modes of group identification:
Attachment: A healthy connection to one's group.
Glorification: An exaggerated, often narcissistic, form of identification that involves inflated positive views of the in-group and negative views of out-groups. This correlates with:
Hostility: Increased negative feelings towards out-groups.
Prejudice: Negative attitudes and biases.
Perceived threat: Both physical and cultural threats from out-groups.
Reactive Devaluation (Ross & Stillinger, 1988)
This bias occurs when groups devalue a proposal or offer simply because it originated from an out-group, even if the content of the proposal is identical to one produced by their own group. For example, the study showed that an identical peace treaty was rated as acceptable by 90% when attributed to an in-group source but only 44% when attributed to an out-group source.
Increased Arousal in Conflict
Conflict situations tend to increase physiological and psychological arousal. Before conflict escalates, groups often exhibit low integrative complexity, meaning their thinking is simplistic, rigid, and binary (us vs. them). This low complexity, combined with high arousal, can lead to increased aggression and a susceptibility to alarmist rhetoric (e.g., "It Can Happen Here!," "So Let's Nuke 'Em First").
Entitativity (Dasgupta et al., 1997)
Entitativity refers to the perception of a group as a coherent, unified entity. Dasgupta and colleagues demonstrated that manipulating the perceived similarity and closeness of group members can increase a group's entitativity. High entitativity can become a self-fulfilling prophecy in conflict scenarios, leading groups to believe that the out-group is a monolithic threat, which then encourages aggressive pre-emptive action with the mindset of "better attack first!"
Conditions of Extreme Conflict & Genocide
Extreme forms of intergroup conflict, such as genocide, arise under specific, severe conditions:
Moral exclusion (moral superiority): Dehumanizing the out-group to the point where they are considered outside the boundaries of moral concern.
Dehumanization: Stripping out-group members of their human qualities, making it easier to inflict harm.
Routinization of harm doing (agentic state): Harmful actions become normalized and routine, often in bureaucratic or hierarchical systems where individuals feel they are merely following orders (agentic state).
Desensitization: Repeated exposure to violence and suffering leads to a diminished emotional response.
Power differences between groups: Significant imbalances in power allow one group to exert its will and carry out atrocities against a weaker group.
Escalating Psychological Processes in Summary
The cycle of intergroup conflict escalation can be summarized as a progression:
Competition over resources: The initial spark, often fueled by perceived scarcity or threat.
Positive distinction of in-group: Groups reinforce their positive self-image and superiority over out-groups.
Conflict escalating psychological processes: Biased perceptions, communication patterns, and attributions intensify animosity.
Power asymmetries: Existing or emerging power imbalances contribute to the dominant group exploiting or attempting to eliminate the out-group.
Justification of Harming Out-group
In escalating conflicts, harming the out-group becomes internalized and justified within the in-group, often considered as:
Sacrifice for the in-group: Actions against the out-group are reframed as necessary sacrifices for the collective good of one's own group.
Sign of loyalty: Participating in hostile actions against the out-group demonstrates allegiance and commitment to the in-group.
Normative to the in-group: The harmful behavior becomes an expected and accepted norm within the group.
Social support: Individuals receive social support and approval from their in-group for engaging in such actions, reinforcing the behavior.