Intergroup Conflict

Outline Sources of intergroup conflictSources of intergroup conflict –Competition and conflict –Social categorization Intergroup conflict resolutionIntergroup conflict resolution –Contact –Beyond contact –Cognitive cures

Robbers Cave Experiment (Sherifs, 1961) A field study attempting to better understand the causes and consequences of intergroup conflict.A field study attempting to better understand the causes and consequences of intergroup conflict. –Subjects: Normal boys of the same age, educational level, similar sociocultural backgroundsNormal boys of the same age, educational level, similar sociocultural backgrounds –Group formation: Arrived in 2 separate groups (Rattlers and the Eagles). Remained apart for one week.Arrived in 2 separate groups (Rattlers and the Eagles). Remained apart for one week.

Robbers Cave Experiment (Sherifs, 1961) –Ingroup/outgroup rivalry: Occurred spontaneously when each group realized the other boys were there. It was spurred by the Sherifs who set up competitive tournament.Occurred spontaneously when each group realized the other boys were there. It was spurred by the Sherifs who set up competitive tournament. –Tournament conflict escalation: Rejection, verbal insults, name calling and physical violenceRejection, verbal insults, name calling and physical violence

Robbers Cave Experiment (Sherifs, 1961)

Competition and Conflict: Us versus them 1) Competition between groups for resources –Realistic conflict theory: Intergroup conflict is caused by competition among groups over limited resources.Intergroup conflict is caused by competition among groups over limited resources. –Competition implicated in class struggles, international warfare, racism...

Competition and Conflict 2. Reciprocity of contentious strategies2. Reciprocity of contentious strategies –Groups also follow the norm of reciprocity Hatfield/McCoy disputeHatfield/McCoy dispute –A spiral model of conflict intensification accurately describes Robbers cave: Verbal abuseVerbal abuse AvoidanceAvoidance DiscriminationDiscrimination Physical assaultPhysical assault

Competition and Conflict 3. Scapegoating3. Scapegoating Hostility caused by frustrating circumstances are sometimes taken out on innocent members of other social groupsHostility caused by frustrating circumstances are sometimes taken out on innocent members of other social groups –Explains rise in prejudice when the economy takes a downturn –Study showing a significant negative correlation between the number of black men lynched in the US and the price of cotton. (Hovland and Sears, 1940)

Class Activity Form two groups:Form two groups: –Group A: People wearing tennis shoes –Group B: People not wearing tennis shoes Group tasks:Group tasks: –Group A: List as many reasons as you can think of as to why the members of group B did not wear tennis shoes today.List as many reasons as you can think of as to why the members of group B did not wear tennis shoes today. –Group B: List as many reasons as you can think of as to why the members of group A are wearing tennis shoes today.List as many reasons as you can think of as to why the members of group A are wearing tennis shoes today.

Social Categorization: Perceiving Us and Them 1) Ingroup/outgroup bias:1) Ingroup/outgroup bias: –We favor our own group and derogate the outgroup At Robbers Cave, when asked to name their friends Eagles picked Eagles, Rattlers picked RattlersAt Robbers Cave, when asked to name their friends Eagles picked Eagles, Rattlers picked Rattlers Boys used negative characteristics to describe the outgroup, but rated their own group more favorablyBoys used negative characteristics to describe the outgroup, but rated their own group more favorably

Social Categorization Cognitive consequences of categorizationCognitive consequences of categorization –A. Outgroup homogeneity effect: Assuming outgroup members are all the sameAssuming outgroup members are all the same –B. Ingroup differentiation bias: We assume our group is complex and diverseWe assume our group is complex and diverse –C. Extremity bias: We make more extreme judgments about people in other groupsWe make more extreme judgments about people in other groups

Social Categorization –D. Law of small numbers: We base judgments about another group based on observations of a small number of individualsWe base judgments about another group based on observations of a small number of individuals –E. Group attribution error: We base judgments about individuals on the general characteristics of the whole groupWe base judgments about individuals on the general characteristics of the whole group –F. Stereotypes: We rely on cognitive generalizations about qualities and characteristics of members of a particular groupWe rely on cognitive generalizations about qualities and characteristics of members of a particular group

Social Categorization Does categorization cause conflict?Does categorization cause conflict? –Minimal group paradigm A research procedure used to study intergroup conflict that creates temporary groupings of anonymous people whose interdependence is virtually nilA research procedure used to study intergroup conflict that creates temporary groupings of anonymous people whose interdependence is virtually nil Even in minimal groups there is evidence of bias!Even in minimal groups there is evidence of bias!

Social Identity Theory (SIT) Three basic assumptions of SIT:Three basic assumptions of SIT: People categorize the social world into ingroups and outgroupsPeople categorize the social world into ingroups and outgroups People strive for a positive self-concept; they derive a sense of self-esteem from their social identityPeople strive for a positive self-concept; they derive a sense of self-esteem from their social identity People’s self-concept partly depends on their evaluation of their group relative to others.People’s self-concept partly depends on their evaluation of their group relative to others. Thus, Social Identity Theory suggests:Thus, Social Identity Theory suggests: We ridicule members of other groups to raise the value of our own group; thus, raising the value of our self.We ridicule members of other groups to raise the value of our own group; thus, raising the value of our self.

Intergroup Conflict Resolution Peaceful co-existence through benign contactPeaceful co-existence through benign contact –Contact hypothesis: Frequent contact between groups reduces conflict between those groupsFrequent contact between groups reduces conflict between those groups –The Sherifs brought the boys together Watching films, lighting fireworks, eatingWatching films, lighting fireworks, eating –This failed! Contact during meals lead to food fights!Contact during meals lead to food fights!

Intergroup Conflict Resolution Beyond contactBeyond contact –Superordinate goals hypothesis: Situations that encourage groups to work together to achieve a common goal can reduce conflict between these groups.Situations that encourage groups to work together to achieve a common goal can reduce conflict between these groups. Sherifs created a series of emergencies that could only be handled by the groups working togetherSherifs created a series of emergencies that could only be handled by the groups working together After 6 days of this cooperation the tensions were fairly well wiped out!After 6 days of this cooperation the tensions were fairly well wiped out!

Superordinate Goals

Happy Ending!

Conflict Reducing Contact Situations Necessary ingredients:Necessary ingredients: 1) Cooperation:1) Cooperation: –Work together for common goals 2) Status2) Status –Equal status! 3) Personal interaction3) Personal interaction –Involving, positive interactions; not superficial 4) Norms4) Norms –Encouraging egalitarian attitudes 5) Positive outcomes:5) Positive outcomes: –Should results in success!

Intergroup Conflict Resolution Cognitive cures for conflictCognitive cures for conflict –Decategorization Minimizing the salience of group memberships and stressing the individuality of each personMinimizing the salience of group memberships and stressing the individuality of each person –Recategorization Collapsing groups in conflict into a single group or categoryCollapsing groups in conflict into a single group or category –Controlled stereotyped thinking (Devine) Stereotypes are automatically activated- but we can control our subsequent thoughtsStereotypes are automatically activated- but we can control our subsequent thoughts