Jump to content

Intergroup harmony

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User:Ian123123)

Intergroup harmony refers to having a positive and harmonious relationship within the group. The characteristic of this concept is that the members within the same group respect each other, and prejudice and conflict are reduced.[1] The main component of this concept would be the members within the same group having equal status and cooperation among the group. This is essential for cultivating intergroup harmony because cooperation and equal status create a condition to reduce bias and enhance mutual understanding within the group.[2][3] There are several approaches to foster harmony among the group. One of the methods is keeping positive intergroup contact, which helps reduce stereotypes and prejudices. Also, using dual-identity frameworks and electronic contact would be effective in improving relationships and alleviating intergroup anxiety. However, there is a possibility that intergroup harmony brings negative impacts to the group. Harmony may sustain inequalities if there are power imbalances that have not yet been addressed and the intervention did not consider social, political, and cultural contexts.[4][5] This concept is provided by the Social Identity Theory and Contact Theory and is the theoretical basis for understanding and improving intergroup relations.[6]

Background

[edit]

This concept is based on the experiments done by Muzafer Sherif and Henri Tajfel respectively. The experiment done by Muzafer Sherif is the Robbers Cave Experiment. He demonstrated competition for resources and shared goals could shape the forming of group conflict and cooperation. He also suggested that intergroup hostility can be mitigated by introducing superordinate goals to promote cooperation.[7] Henri Tajfel did another experiment in the "minimal group paradigm" experiments. This experiment shows that when there is no competition, intergroup bias arises by separating the members into different categories.[8] Also, according to the Intergroup Threat Theory (2015), attitudes and behaviours towards outgroups would be influenced by the realistic or symbolic threats perceived.[9]

Moreover, Vescio et al. (2004) suggested and verified the Crossed-Categorization Hypothesis. In this hypothesis, a conclusion is that intergroup bias would be reduced by weakening category distinctions when any categories overlap.[10] This hypothesis provides thoughts on cultivating intergroup harmony, although there would still be bias because of the existence of in-group favouritism or prejudice.

There are multiple experts who contribute to this theory. Muzafer Sherif is one of the professionals who is famous for foundational experiments on conflict and cooperation in groups. The Robbers Cave Experiment is one of his well-known experiments that contributes to the concepts of intergroup harmony. Henri Tajfel is another expert. He is the developer of the Social Identity Theory, and he also suggested the minimal group paradigm" experiments. These two theories are essential for the study of intergroup harmony.

Theoretical frameworks

[edit]

Theories about intergroup relations provide insight into how prejudice and conflict arise and how they can be reduced. The Social Identity Theory and Contact Theory are the basic theories to support this concept. According to the Social Identity Theory, an individual would define themselves by their social group partially. To enhance their status, they would have a higher probability of exhibiting in-group favouritism and discrimination against out-groups, which harms the harmony of the intergroup.[11][12] However, when an identity shared beyond a single group is possible, this can reduce intergroup bias and even enhance cooperation.[13] There might be defensive behaviours, as this theory highlights the role of subgroup identity threats, which supports greater harmony when these threats have been addressed.

The Contact Hypothesis mentions an approach to reduce prejudice and improve relationships in specific conditions is to have meaningful interactions between individuals from different intergroups. The conditions would be having an equal status among different groups and having cooperative goals, which requires the collaboration of the group.[14][15] These conditions would be effective in diminishing prejudice. Also, having positive contact with institutional support and opportunities for personal interactions to challenge stereotypes would be a special condition for aiming the target. Based on this hypothesis, it reduces intergroup anxiety, increases empathy, and strengthens interpersonal connections. Moreover, the interactions would challenge stereotypes and promote mutual understanding, reducing intergroup tensions, which is essential for fostering intergroup harmony.[16][17]

Influences on society

[edit]

Intergroup harmony brings positive and negative influences. The first positive influence would be reducing prejudice and stereotypes. Various studies illustrate that prejudice declines when attitudes toward out-groups in a harmonious intergroup relationship are improved, even if the members are being threatened or discriminated against. There is a meta-analysis display of the positive impact of reducing prejudice and having intergroup contact.[18] Reducing anxiety about interacting with members from the out-group, and having empathy and perspective-taking are the mechanisms for having this benefit. At the community level, positive intergroup interactions are common, and this would make it simpler to influence social norms and reduce stereotypes even if there is not existing any direct contact between individuals, especially in this diverse society.[19]

Moreover, other positive impacts would be having benefits on the economic and educational levels. For the benefits in the economic category, having intergroup harmony would enhance the productivity of the team. Having intergroup harmony reduces challenges and conflict within the group and has a more equal distribution of resources. This allows the members of the team to focus more on their work rather than being concerned about striving for more resources. This also allows the members of the organisation to see greater networking, effort, and task coordination, which significantly enhances the productivity of the economy.[20][21] And for the benefits in the educational category, this allows students to have better preparation for the globalised world. An inclusive environment reduces bias, and discrimination would be created by the academic environment. This enhanced the collaborations between students, which fostered the atmosphere within the school more harmonious. This would also be an improvement in academic outcomes and the development of cross-cultural competencies allows the student to be more competitive in the global environment.[22][23] In conclusion, enhanced economic productivity and better educational outcomes would be seen in societies with higher intergroup harmony as discrimination decreases and more cooperation exists.

Empirical evidence

[edit]

There are several pieces of evidence showing the existence of intergroup harmony. One of the examples would be happening in South Africa. In South Africa, after the apartheid era from 1948 to 1994, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission promoted restorative justice and racial understanding to address apartheid-era abuses. The commission focuses on truth-telling and amnesty, supporting social integration and democratic transition.[24] However, critics argue that these policies do not fully address the needs of victims or systemic inequalities.[25]

Another example would be the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. In 1998, the Good Friday Agreement was signed, and this agreement emphasised power-sharing and cross-community initiatives. This allows the citizens in Northern Ireland to have a similar status to fulfil the requirement of not having extreme differences in status. This has reduced violence and encouraged collaboration between Catholics and Protestants.[26] However, continued segregation in education and neighbourhoods is still a challenge that harms intergroup harmony.[27]

Moreover, in Rwanda, after the 1994 genocide, Gacaca courts were utilised for community-based justice. The courts are used for fostering accountability and reconciliation.[28] Intergroup harmony has also been cultivated through education reforms that integrate peacebuilding and conflict resolution into school curricula.

Toronto and New York are the cities that have intergroup harmony. There are inclusive policies and cultural festivals to celebrate the diversity of the city, fostering intergroup dialogue and reducing prejudice.[29] However, economic inequality and disparities in access to affordable housing are still the challenges hindering comprehensive social integration.[30]

Debates about intergroup harmony

[edit]

There are numerous debates towards intergroup harmony. Sustaining inequality is one of the negative arguments about intergroup harmony. Historical narratives would affect the legitimacy of social inequalities. As historical narratives can be changed, there might be an agreement within the harmonious intergroup that ignores historical contexts or changes the historical narratives. This might transfer the problem of intergroup conflict to interpersonal relations.[31] Also if the intergroup threat perceptions forcing group-based inequality are seen as legal and acceptable, this would maintain and persist social inequalities.[32]

However, the problem of inequality can be improved by having positive intergroup contact. Positive intergroup contact significantly enhances collective action among advantaged group members.[33] This can reduce social dominance orientation and improve the inequality problem by taking further actions. The advantaged group members would have a higher probability to engage in collective action supporting disadvantaged groups when the advantaged group members engage in discussions about power imbalances during intergroup contact.[34] This will also be improved when the advantaged group helps the disadvantaged groups to maintain an equal status within the intergroup.

Another negative argument would be reduced collective action motivation. Some arguments state that the motivation of marginalised groups for collective action would reduced when promoting intergroup harmony through common identity frameworks. When disadvantaged group members are encouraged to adopt a shared identity with advantaged groups, they may experience reduced group-based anger and perceive inequalities as less severe, decreasing their willingness to push for social change.[35] Another argument would be promoting intergroup harmony would distract the members from social change goals. The goals of the advantaged groups and the disadvantaged groups might be different. They might change their goals because of intergroup harmony forcing them not to oppose the ideas.[35]

However, the problem of collective action motivation can be improved by having a dual identity framework that enhances action. While common ingroup identity alone may reduce collective action, adopting a dual identity framework—where individuals maintain both their unique group identity and a shared overarching identity—can boost collective action. This approach allows disadvantaged groups to recognize their distinct struggles while fostering positive intergroup relations, enhancing motivation for social change.[36]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Banker, Brenda S.; Gaertner, Samuel L. (September 1998). "Achieving stepfamily harmony: An intergroup-relations approach". Journal of Family Psychology. 12 (3): 310–325. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.12.3.310. ISSN 1939-1293.
  2. ^ Hornsey, Matthew J.; Hogg, Michael A. (2000-05-01). "Assimilation and Diversity: An Integrative Model of Subgroup Relations". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 4 (2): 143–156. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_03. ISSN 1088-8683.
  3. ^ White, Fiona A.; Abu-Rayya, Hisham M. (2012-05-01). "A dual identity-electronic contact (DIEC) experiment promoting short- and long-term intergroup harmony". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 48 (3): 597–608. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.01.007. ISSN 0022-1031.
  4. ^ Guimond, Serge; de la Sablonnière, Roxane; Nugier, Armelle (2014-01-01). "Living in a multicultural world: Intergroup ideologies and the societal context of intergroup relations". European Review of Social Psychology. 25 (1): 142–188. doi:10.1080/10463283.2014.957578. ISSN 1046-3283.
  5. ^ Saguy, Tamar (2018-03-01). "Downside of Intergroup Harmony? When Reconciliation Might Backfire and What to Do". Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 5 (1): 75–81. doi:10.1177/2372732217747085. ISSN 2372-7322.
  6. ^ Hornsey, Matthew J.; Hogg, Michael A. (May 2000). "Assimilation and Diversity: An Integrative Model of Subgroup Relations". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 4 (2): 143–156. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_03. ISSN 1088-8683.
  7. ^ "Robbers Cave Experiment | Realistic Conflict Theory". 2023-09-27. Retrieved 2024-12-15.
  8. ^ Sherif, Muzafer (1958). "Superordinate Goals in the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict". American Journal of Sociology. 63 (4): 349–356. doi:10.1086/222258. ISSN 0002-9602. JSTOR 2774135.
  9. ^ Rios, Kimberly; Sosa, Nicholas; Osborn, Hannah (January 2018). "An experimental approach to Intergroup Threat Theory: Manipulations, moderators, and consequences of realistic vs. symbolic threat". European Review of Social Psychology. 29 (1): 212–255. doi:10.1080/10463283.2018.1537049. ISSN 1046-3283.
  10. ^ Vescio, Theresa K; Judd, Charles M; Kwan, Virginia S. Y (2004-07-01). "The crossed-categorization hypothesis: Evidence of reductions in the strength of categorization, but not intergroup bias". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 40 (4): 478–496. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.005. ISSN 0022-1031.
  11. ^ "An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict". library.alnap.org. Retrieved 2024-12-15.
  12. ^ Brown, Rupert (2000). "Social identity theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges". European Journal of Social Psychology. 30 (6): 745–778. doi:10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6<745::AID-EJSP24>3.0.CO;2-O. ISSN 1099-0992.
  13. ^ Gaertner, Samuel L.; Dovidio, John F.; Rust, Mary C.; Nier, Jason A.; Banker, Brenda S.; Ward, Christine M.; Mottola, Gary R.; Houlette, Missy (1999). "Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 76 (3): 388–402. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.388. ISSN 1939-1315.
  14. ^ Dixon, John; Durrheim, Kevin; Tredoux, Colin (October 2005). "Beyond the optimal contact strategy: a reality check for the contact hypothesis". The American Psychologist. 60 (7): 697–711. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.697. ISSN 0003-066X. PMID 16221003.
  15. ^ Gaertner, Samuel L.; Dovidio, John F.; Anastasio, Phyllis A.; Bachman, Betty A.; Rust, Mary C. (1993-01-01). "The Common Ingroup Identity Model: Recategorization and the Reduction of Intergroup Bias". European Review of Social Psychology. 4 (1): 1–26. doi:10.1080/14792779343000004. ISSN 1046-3283.
  16. ^ Paolini, Stefania; Harwood, Jake; Rubin, Mark (2010-12-01). "Negative Intergroup Contact Makes Group Memberships Salient: Explaining Why Intergroup Conflict Endures". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 36 (12): 1723–1738. doi:10.1177/0146167210388667. hdl:1959.13/929005. ISSN 0146-1672. PMID 21051766.
  17. ^ Pettigrew, Thomas F.; Tropp, Linda R. (2006). "A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 90 (5): 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751. ISSN 1939-1315.
  18. ^ Van Assche, Jasper; Swart, Hermann; Schmid, Katharina; Dhont, Kristof; Al Ramiah, Ananthi; Christ, Oliver; Kauff, Mathias; Rothmann, Sebastiaan; Savelkoul, Michael; Tausch, Nicole; Wölfer, Ralf; Zahreddine, Sarah; Saleem, Muniba; Hewstone, Miles (September 2023). "Intergroup contact is reliably associated with reduced prejudice, even in the face of group threat and discrimination". The American Psychologist. 78 (6): 761–774. doi:10.1037/amp0001144. ISSN 1935-990X. PMID 36892922.
  19. ^ Christ, Oliver; Schmid, Katharina; Lolliot, Simon; Swart, Hermann; Stolle, Dietlind; Tausch, Nicole; Al Ramiah, Ananthi; Wagner, Ulrich; Vertovec, Steven; Hewstone, Miles (2014-03-18). "Contextual effect of positive intergroup contact on outgroup prejudice". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (11): 3996–4000. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.3996C. doi:10.1073/pnas.1320901111. PMC 3964129. PMID 24591627.
  20. ^ Aaldering, Hillie; Böhm, Robert (2020-01-01). "Parochial Versus Universal Cooperation: Introducing a Novel Economic Game of Within- and Between-Group Interaction". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 11 (1): 36–45. doi:10.1177/1948550619841627. ISSN 1948-5506.
  21. ^ David, Gwendolyn Kim; Wilson, Robbie Stuart (2015-08-27). Sánchez, Angel (ed.). "Cooperation Improves Success during Intergroup Competition: An Analysis Using Data from Professional Soccer Tournaments". PLOS ONE. 10 (8): e0136503. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1036503D. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136503. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 4552163. PMID 26313929.
  22. ^ Hughes, Joanne; Loader, Rebecca (2015). "'Plugging the gap': shared education and the promotion of community relations through schools in Northern Ireland". British Educational Research Journal. 41 (6): 1142–1155. doi:10.1002/berj.3206. ISSN 1469-3518.
  23. ^ Turner, Rhiannon N.; Cameron, Lindsey (2016). "Confidence in Contact: A New Perspective on Promoting Cross-Group Friendship Among Children and Adolescents". Social Issues and Policy Review. 10 (1): 212–246. doi:10.1111/sipr.12023. ISSN 1751-2409.
  24. ^ Gibson, James L. (2004). "Does Truth Lead to Reconciliation? Testing the Causal Assumptions of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Process". American Journal of Political Science. 48 (2): 201–217. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00065.x. ISSN 1540-5907.
  25. ^ Stanley, Elizabeth (2001). "Evaluating the Truth and Reconciliation Commission". The Journal of Modern African Studies. 39 (3): 525–546. doi:10.1017/S0022278X01003706. ISSN 0022-278X. JSTOR 3557322.
  26. ^ Hayes, Bernadette C.; McAllister, Ian (2001-12-01). "Sowing Dragon's Teeth: Public Support for Political Violence and Paramilitarism in Northern Ireland". Political Studies. 49 (5): 901–922. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00346. ISSN 0032-3217.
  27. ^ Gardner, John (2016-05-03). "Education in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday Agreement: Kabuki theatre meets danse macabre". Oxford Review of Education. 42 (3): 346–361. doi:10.1080/03054985.2016.1184869. ISSN 0305-4985.
  28. ^ Thomson, Susan (2014-05-01). "Rwanda's National Unity and Reconciliation Program". E-International Relations. Retrieved 2024-12-15.
  29. ^ Kymlicka, Will (2010). "The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and accommodation in diverse societies". International Social Science Journal. 61 (199): 97–112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01750.x. ISSN 1468-2451.
  30. ^ Borooah, Vani K.; Knox, Colin (2015-01-01). "Segregation, inequality, and educational performance in Northern Ireland: Problems and solutions". International Journal of Educational Development. 40: 196–206. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.09.002. ISSN 0738-0593.
  31. ^ Wagner, Wolfgang (January 2012). "The politics of moving beyond prejudice: A comment on Dixon, Levine, Reicher and Durrheim". LSE Research Online. London School of Economics.
  32. ^ Morrison, Kimberly Rios; Fast, Nathanael J.; Ybarra, Oscar (2009-01-01). "Group status, perceptions of threat, and support for social inequality". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 45 (1): 204–210. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.004. ISSN 0022-1031.
  33. ^ Meleady, Rose; Vermue, Marieke (May 2019). "The effect of intergroup contact on solidarity-based collective action is mediated by reductions in SDO". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 49 (5): 307–318. doi:10.1111/jasp.12586. ISSN 0021-9029.
  34. ^ Tropp, Linda R.; Uluğ, Özden Melis; Uysal, Mete Sefa (January 2021). "How intergroup contact and communication about group differences predict collective action intentions among advantaged groups". International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 80: 7–16. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2020.10.012.
  35. ^ a b Ufkes, Elze G.; Calcagno, Justine; Glasford, Demis E.; Dovidio, John F. (2016-03-01). "Understanding how common ingroup identity undermines collective action among disadvantaged-group members". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 63: 26–35. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.11.006. ISSN 0022-1031.
  36. ^ Glasford, Demis E.; Dovidio, John F. (2011-09-01). "E pluribus unum: Dual identity and minority group members' motivation to engage in contact, as well as social change". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 47 (5): 1021–1024. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.021. ISSN 0022-1031.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergroup_harmony&oldid=1264450855"